Tag Archive for: standard

The Pose running standard is a description of a runner as system working at optimum efficiency.

In a previous article I describes how traditional reductionist science doesn’t seem to be moving our understanding of running technique much further. The reason for this is that a purely reductionist approach leads many researchers to view running technique as collection of separate variables, rather than looking at how these variables relate to each other. Thus they produce study after study on one element of running technique without accounting for or controlling the other variables. Generally they are thrashing around with seemingly no direction, because they have no underlying theory of running technique nor any standard to measure their results against.

With a little digging on the internet, it shouldn’t be very difficult to find critics of Pose theory and Pose running. The vast majority of these criticisms are easily dismissed because the individual has a fundamental misunderstanding about Pose theory and technique. It also common for Pose critics to make arguments using physics incorrectly. It seems that many people do not understand that a force (like gravity) applied over a lever (like the body) changes the direction of that force. They will argue endlessly that gravity cannot be manipulated to move an object horizontally. Hmm… So how is it that monkeys can swing through the trees?

Pose running technique has a very specific standard derived from an underlying theory of movement. To the best of my knowledge, Pose is the only running technique that has a standard or for that matter is based on a specific theory of movement. All other running techniques I’m familiar with are based on disjointed rules-of-thumb, with no unifying concept. Pose running is not, as so many people seem to believe, all about “landing on the forefoot”, or “taking shorter strides”. It is much more than that, and in fact Pose running technique has very little to do with either of those things. They are at best side effects of good technique, having a forefoot landing doesn’t directly translate into good technique, nor does a heel strike necessarily signify terrible technique. Although one cannot have ideal technique without a forefoot landing.

According to Pose theory, the forefoot landing has very little to do with running efficiency.

I’m not going to give a detailed description of the theory and standard here, there are many other resources for that. What is important to understand is that Pose running technique requires an alignment of many different variables to be executed properly. Some of those variables are purely physical, some are neurological, and others are mental. The Pose running standard is a description of a runner as system working at optimum efficiency.

So, how do many studies fall short on the subject of running technique? Say for example there is a study that shows no improvement in efficiency when using a forefoot landing, and there have been many studies that show exactly this. Often those studies will then be quoted as evidence that Pose running is less efficient, usually based on the mistaken belief that Pose running is primarily about landing on the forefoot. Again the problem here is that this is just one variable with no context.

For example, where is the foot landing in relationship to the rest of the body? Is foot landing even a significant factor for efficiency? In other words, there is no attempt to explain the interaction of the variable studied against other variables, or to even understand if the question is relevant. Is foot landing even a relevant factor for efficiency?

According to Pose theory, the forefoot landing has very little to do with running efficiency. This variable has more to do with preventing injury, but only when the runner lands in alignment. A forefoot landing in front of the runner’s center-of-gravity may very well actually cause more injury and be less efficient. This data is not very useful without context, and according to Pose theory, there is an even larger context.

All movement is governed by interactions with gravity. If you take that concept and work backward, all of a sudden many of the central questions many studies attempt to address appear to be fundamentally flawed.

In order for a study to add much to our knowledge about Pose running, the runners in the study representing Pose running technique would ideally have to meet or exceed the Pose running standard. Alternatively the study would have to account for variations from the standard in each of the runners. Another possibility would be that the runners would be measured against another standard (if one existed), but ultimately there would have to be some way to account for how well all the variables align, and not just the variations in one specific element of running technique.

In future articles I hope to discuss specific studies and how they relate to Pose. I will also discuss some of the fundamental mistakes people make when they attempt to apply studies to understanding Pose.



I would like to credit Ivan Rivera Bours whose blog runninginsystems.com introduced me to the idea of applying systems science to running. I would also like to thank Ivan for his invaluable assistance and feedback in the writing of this article.

We use the word ‘standard’ on daily basis, we’re all very familiar with its meaning. Here’s a quick sample of the meaning given in a dictionary just so we’re on the same page:

standard |ˈstandərd|
1 a level of quality or attainment
2 an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations: the wages are low by today’s standards | the system had become an industry standard.
• (standards) principles of conduct informed by notions of honor and decency: a decline in moral standards.
• a form of language that is widely accepted as the correct form.
• the prescribed weight of fine metal in gold or silver coins: the sterling standard for silver.
• a system by which the value of a currency is defined in terms of gold or silver or both.




Standard Exists Everywhere

A ‘standard’ is, basically, an approved and generally accepted model of something, a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment, an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc. When Apple develops their gadgets – they have a standard they follow. When car makers build their creations – they follow standards in car manufacturing.

There are standards being taught and displayed in all sports. Not all are necessarily correct, according to my understanding of movement and in my humble opinion, but there are standards nonetheless. In running, however, we are all suddenly unique and all have different techniques and styles. Does that not sound a bit strange? It does. And it is. Of course we are all unique individuals, but let’s not confuse our personalities and styles with technical standard in movement.

Benefits of Having a Standard

What does having a ‘standard’ offer us when it comes to human movement in sports, and in general?

  • Precise model to learn. With a standard model to learn, a student avoids the potential pitfalls of a wandering mind. Experimenting on top of a learned standard is quite different from experimenting without the basic foundation. While the first is full of advantageous discoveries, the latter is full of confusion and easily avoidable mistakes.
  • Precise model to teach. If there was no standard, all teachings or attempts to teach would be disorganized, scattered, unfocused, etc. There would be no way to determine what’s a mistake and what is not. There would be no way to offer clarity of the subject to a student. Teaching would be an impossible task.
  • Ability to identify and correct errors. This is probably one of the most important attributes of any model of any ‘standard’. When there is a clearly identified and put forth model for a standard, any deviation from that standard is easily seen. That is precisely the definition of an ‘error’. In order for something to be labeled an error there has to be a clear standard according to which something is classified as an error. One does not exist without the other.

The claim that there is no correct running technique or any other correct sports technique is unfounded and is not supported by science. Moreover it does not make any sense. Unless we figure out how to defy gravity or it suddenly changes the way it works – we will abide by its current standard of operation that has not changed since our planet came into being.

The laws of operation of all natural forces with gravity at the helm consequently lead to a particular set of rules in movement of a human body. This standard branches out into standards in human movement when participating in various athletic activities or simply moving around. Movement related misuse injuries and pain are our signals that we’re deviating from the already existing standard of movement. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, won’t change this standard. Plain and simple.