For example, a study on teaching running technique, showed that running economy of high-level triathletes was actually reduced after 12 weeks of practicing the Pose method of running.The first problem with this study is that it was very flawed in its design. If he bothered to look closely at the study, he should have realized this. Secondly, it only covered a 12 week period. It's not realistic to expect people to full covert their running technique in 12 weeks.
Dr. Yessis goes on to say the following.
However, if the researchers truly understood running technique and what is involved in running, they never would have used the Pose method because it is flawed. This method is based on erroneous concepts and only confuses what is known in science on effective running technique. Thus we see false conclusions based on false assumptions.In my opinion, if he is going to make a sweeping statement like this, then he is obliged to explain how Pose running is flawed, and what exactly are the erroneous concepts on which Pose is based.
Furthermore, he did not allow people to submit comments to this post. One can only speculate as to why he did not allow the submission of comments for this particular post. However, when criticizing someone else's work, then you should be willing to defend your statements. However, rather than defending is comments, Dr. Yessis just prevented anyone from asking him to justify his opinions.
I'm not saying that Dr. Yessis is wrong, because there is nothing substantial with which one could use as a basis for agreement or disagreement in his post. What he did offer as evidence was one poorly designed study, and one study rarely proves or disproves anything.
Further Reading on the Study