Hi Olly,
Again, thanks so much for participating here. I think some of us were getting scared that you weren't coming back and the discussion would cease.
Since I'm here, I'll kick it off, especially since my road travelled is probably similar to others.
My approach, in treatment of those in pain, is to consider the nervous system. Since pain is an output, and not an input, I find it important to consider why this output has come to be. Why is the body under the impression that it is being threatened, and is therefore attempting to use pain to bring about resolution. Then, I hope to unravel what needs to happen to bring about this resolution.
It will be easier to describe the influences of my technique than to describe them, because in approaching the patient in the above manner, I don't use a toolbox, but rather a framework. I'm sure you understand.
The big influences for me were first Sahrmann, after which I used very tissue stress based explanations, similar to yours above so far. Next up was Butler and Shacklock with Neurodynamics. At this point I began to see that pain cannot be explained in terms of tissue stress. As Lorimer Moseley said, "nociception is not necessary nor sufficient to cause pain." So, an incorporation of the physiology of pain, and the nature of the nervous system was incorporated. Lastly, has been the influence of modern neuroscience. The work of Patrick Wall, Joseph LeDoux, Damasio, and others helps to paint a picture of how pain is very context driven, with tissue stress being just one of many, many facets of that context.
As Jon said, your technique likely brings about results, no doubt. I think where we are concerned is with differences in explaning why your approach brings about the results that it does. It is not a lack of understanding, nor a lack of eagerness to learn that is in our tone (In fact, I think that if you read through some of the threads you'll see that an eagerness to learn and foster learning is one of the many strengths of this site). Instead it is a tone that doesn't trust that a mechanical or tissue stress based explanation will hold weight throughout a pain physiology perspective.
Critiques here can no doubt become harsh, but all we are looking for is an equally strong defense. Not defensiveness, but defense of theory.
Thanks again for posting!
Cory
Again, thanks so much for participating here. I think some of us were getting scared that you weren't coming back and the discussion would cease.
Since I'm here, I'll kick it off, especially since my road travelled is probably similar to others.
My approach, in treatment of those in pain, is to consider the nervous system. Since pain is an output, and not an input, I find it important to consider why this output has come to be. Why is the body under the impression that it is being threatened, and is therefore attempting to use pain to bring about resolution. Then, I hope to unravel what needs to happen to bring about this resolution.
It will be easier to describe the influences of my technique than to describe them, because in approaching the patient in the above manner, I don't use a toolbox, but rather a framework. I'm sure you understand.
The big influences for me were first Sahrmann, after which I used very tissue stress based explanations, similar to yours above so far. Next up was Butler and Shacklock with Neurodynamics. At this point I began to see that pain cannot be explained in terms of tissue stress. As Lorimer Moseley said, "nociception is not necessary nor sufficient to cause pain." So, an incorporation of the physiology of pain, and the nature of the nervous system was incorporated. Lastly, has been the influence of modern neuroscience. The work of Patrick Wall, Joseph LeDoux, Damasio, and others helps to paint a picture of how pain is very context driven, with tissue stress being just one of many, many facets of that context.
As Jon said, your technique likely brings about results, no doubt. I think where we are concerned is with differences in explaning why your approach brings about the results that it does. It is not a lack of understanding, nor a lack of eagerness to learn that is in our tone (In fact, I think that if you read through some of the threads you'll see that an eagerness to learn and foster learning is one of the many strengths of this site). Instead it is a tone that doesn't trust that a mechanical or tissue stress based explanation will hold weight throughout a pain physiology perspective.
Critiques here can no doubt become harsh, but all we are looking for is an equally strong defense. Not defensiveness, but defense of theory.
Thanks again for posting!
Cory
Comment