Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Free online learning from leading meat experts(including the thoracic ring people)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cupplesperformance View Post

    It seems that at least a bulk of the group speaking appreciates the nervous system; so let's learn, discuss, and debate what is said once it is said.
    Well said.

    Always proud my son.

    Bill

    Comment


    • #17
      It seems that at least a bulk of the group speaking appreciates the nervous system; so let's learn, discuss, and debate what is said once it is said.
      There's a find line between "appreciation" and "lip service". I'm hearing a lot of the latter lately. When I see more "walking the walk", then I'll be more inclined to acknowledge appreciation for the nervous system.

      The "thoracic ring" thing as described by LJ Lee does not meet the defintion of appreciation of the nervous system in my opinion. Not even close.
      John Ware, PT
      Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists
      "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson
      “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot
      be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by John W View Post
        There's a find line between "appreciation" and "lip service". I'm hearing a lot of the latter lately. When I see more "walking the walk", then I'll be more inclined to acknowledge appreciation for the nervous system.

        The "thoracic ring" thing as described by LJ Lee does not meet the defintion of appreciation of the nervous system in my opinion. Not even close.
        While I have not read their thorax book yet, if the Pelvic book is any inclination I would agree with you John. They wrote a nervous system chapter and did not mention much after that in terms of treatment, which was quite disappointing for me.

        What exactly would constitute "walking the walk?" It is hard to see if most anyone practices what they preach until you see them actually practice, interact with patients, etc.

        Comment


        • #19
          No, I disagree: walking the walk shows first and foremost a deeper understanding of the fractal nature of human interaction - especially when pain gets thrown in.

          Anyone still teaching specific palpatory tests, structurally focused "fixes" for biomechanical "dysfunctions", talks about balancing muscles, is clearly showing that they are NOT applying a deeper understanding.

          I really do not give a hoot what they do with their patients - they are very likely very empathic people, with gentle hands and manners. But that has nothing to do with what they SAY and present.
          We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are - Anais Nin

          I suppose it's easier to believe something than it is to understand it.
          Cmdr. Chris Hadfield on rise of poor / pseudo science

          Pain is a conscious correlate of the implicit perception of threat to body tissue - Lorimer Moseley

          We don't need a body to feel a body. Ronald Melzack

          Comment


          • #20
            To succeed in the world it is not sufficient to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.

            Voltaire
            Please note that I didn't say stupid - Voltair did. In a case like this I prefer willfully ignorant and unwilling to state and defend your premise.
            Barrett L. Dorko

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bas Asselbergs View Post
              Anyone still teaching specific palpatory tests, structurally focused "fixes" for biomechanical "dysfunctions", talks about balancing muscles, is clearly showing that they are NOT applying a deeper understanding.
              A pretty fair assessment.

              Is this a general statement or are you including all of the previously discussed practitioners (post #13) in that group?

              Bill

              Comment


              • #22
                I try to change how people move, how they think about moving and get them to explore new movement patterns.
                I'm willing to bet that's how most of us go about assessing and treating patients in pain. What I have encountered in clinical practice is that the term posture is used to imply that their is an ideal posture or norm. Also, many patients assume that when we mention posture it means sitting straight. So I avoid this term. It tends to lead to discussions about pelvic alignment or specific positions of the scapula etc. All ideas with little evidence linking them to pain. So yes, discussing movement and exploring movement is helpful to the patient.
                Rob Willcott Physiotherapist

                Comment


                • #23
                  Is it fair to say:

                  "more free on line learning about methods/systems/processes' doing the same thing while providing different explanations for exercise, hands on interventions and body positioning, mentioning the nervous system for pain relief and injury prevention while engaging in the practice of reference and letter bombing"
                  "The views expressed here are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Bas Asselbergs View Post
                    Anyone still teaching specific palpatory tests, structurally focused "fixes" for biomechanical "dysfunctions", talks about balancing muscles, is clearly showing that they are NOT applying a deeper understanding.
                    Originally posted by PRPerformance1 View Post
                    A pretty fair assessment.

                    Is this a general statement or are you including all of the previously discussed practitioners (post #13) in that group?
                    Bill, thanks for engaging in conversation.

                    I only have experience with Mr Hruska's teachings (of the presenters listed above). And while I understand he makes no claims regarding pain, aren't most of the case studies presented on his site pertaining to the treatment of a patient in pain? All one of my patients would have to do is read through the PRI website and see things like this article about preventing injuries in cycling with a PRI approach or this one that argues that "QL pain" is the result of a L AIC/R BC pattern to fall prey to the assymetry=pain mode of thought (despite assymetry's pervasiveness in asymptomatic individuals - which you know). While I understand that PRI teaching has shifted more toward discussing the ANS (based on my readings of Zac's blog - keep up the great work, Zac), does this not speak, indirectly, to what some might find as in conflict with a "deeper understanding"? Does the PRI approach not include a structural focus for biomechanical/postural dysfunctions and talk of restoring balance in muscle activity?

                    Some might wonder if they are reading 'lip-service' acknowledgment of the NS; I will simply state that it seems as though I am reading very mixed signals.

                    I am not arguing that the approach does not have merits in helping a patient learn to breathe better and move in novel ways. It is great for that...and in my experience, symmetry will improve. Sometimes a change in breathing patterns and novel input is enough to positively influence a painful neurotag. I get that - but what is most important to me is a patient's understanding of their pain; I fail to see how a quick trip to the PRI site by a patient would provide them with any useful information with an honest appraisal of the complexity of their pain experience.

                    I know that you and Zac each have more experience than I (only 3 classes), and I don't want to make this a PRI thread or a bash-fest of those who utilize the techniques taught by Mr Hruska (so, if that is a concern, I welcome a PM), but any brief input that you might offer would be appreciated.

                    Respectfully,
                    Keith
                    Blog: Keith's Korner
                    Twitter: @18mmPT

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'd simply like to know what posture needs to be restored and why?
                      Rob Willcott Physiotherapist

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        ...but what is most important to me is a patient's understanding of their pain...
                        I agree, and there's a growing body of evidence, including RCTs, demonstrating how important this is. One of the first questions that I asked over in that ongoing thoracic ring thread was something along the lines of "What are they teaching these patients about their pain?" I can't imagine reconciling adjusting or conveying that you are adjusting a person's body part-by whatever means- with a defensible explanation of the pain experience.

                        This strikes me as an clear case of attempting to place a square peg into a round hole- and rather forcefully at that.
                        John Ware, PT
                        Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists
                        "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson
                        “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot
                        be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I am familiar with some of the speakers. Spina I've known personally for more than a decade and we talk regularly. He doesn't really discuss pain science. His approach is similar to how I train athletes and is primarily for training strength and mobility. Much is based on mechaniotransduction. I wrote a blog on fascia and stretching the power of what manual therapy is capable of doing. Dr Spina responded at length if you care to read. http://www.thebodymechanic.ca/2012/1...s-dorsi-sling/

                          Many of the other speakers probably know pain science. I know Charlie Weingroff does ( a review of his course can be read here (http://www.thebodymechanic.ca/2012/1...-and-the-sfma/). However, i would hesitantly suggest that many would think their approaches are consistent with pain physiology science.

                          They seem to recognize that pain is an ouput of the brain in response to a threat. They recognize that nociception influnces movement and motor control. But a common biomechanical theme that links their approaches is the belief that there is an optimal way for the body to move.

                          Deviations from optimal movement at one joint are assumed to influence movement at another. Perhaps negatively. Altered movement at some distal joint will then create nociception. They will probably recognize that that nociception is not sufficient for pain but may still contribute to it

                          Obviously this is the faulty biomechanics causes nociception theme. What this theme seems to do is use pain science to knock a simple structural pathology (arthritis, bony deformities) idea behind pain and replace that with the altered "function" or "bad" movement causes nociception and perhaps pain.

                          And again, I think they would suggest these biomechanical flaws causing nociception ideas are still consistent with pain science. I know with certainty that at least one of the speakers recommends Explain Pain as required reading.

                          Assuming everyone is Moseley/Butler fan, Whats interesting is the huge difference in opinion on "optimal" movement's relationship to pain or injury between those speakers and many people here on this board

                          Discussion among opposing views would certainly be edifying

                          Apologies to anyone if my simple summary misrepresented viewpoints

                          Greg

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            At its very simplest I think the rationale is based on how important you think Nociception is to the pain experience

                            Movement "flaws" create compensations which lead to nociception

                            Address the movement flaw and ameliorate nociception.

                            All these models assume Nociception is occuring and is the primary driver of pain

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Oh and if you think nociception plays a tiny role and pain is emergent from a big Fuzzball then you probably think movement "flaws" are hardly relevant.

                              Where you fall on this divide determines what you teach people about pain, certainly of mechanical origin

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Last post:

                                For anyone interested here is a blog I wrote suggesting that no manual therapy can influence the structure of Connective Tissue. Andreo Spina ( a friend for a decade) wrote a long reply.

                                Related here is a review of mine of Charlie Weingroff's course and the SFMA[/URL]

                                Greg

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X