Deconstruction of "Z-Health Performance Solutions"

[Bas Asselbergs]

Todd (hargrove) - how is Cobb's approach different from any other "bodywork/exercise" approach?
Considering your statements:

The basic idea is that most of how Z (or any other modality) accomplishes anything is through “threat modulation”,

his intention is to use joint mobility exercises to improve motor and sensory maps.

Why would one take courses from Cobb if ANY modality (here meaning: exercise modality) affects the same systems? What sets him apart from self-study of neurophysiology?

[Jason Silvernail]

Bas-
I can't speak for Todd H, I'd just like to point out the same questions have been asked since this thread started. I'm entering post #212 here.
Quite a statement on what "Z Health" is about.

[regnalt deux]

Regnalt said:

?I don?t see how David Butler and Lorimer Mosely fit into the Z-Health paradigm. The joint movements are done to activate mechanoreceptors and not tension/slide the nerves.?

Butler and Mosely are required reading for one of Cobb?s advanced courses. In that course he teaches how to modify his joint mobility exercises to slide or tension all the major nerves in the body. Cobb likes Mosely?s concept of the neuromatrix and it is a central paradigm to teach Z?s focus on the CNS as the target for change. The basic idea is that most of how Z (or any other modality) accomplishes anything is through ?threat modulation?, i.e. reducing threat to the nervous system in a way that will encourage it to be in a less protective (e.g. painful and stiff) mode. He further stresses that each CNS is very individual and is affected by a huge variety of inputs and interpretations.

The whole Z-Health thread is going in circles. I?ve watched most of the Z-Health videos, read most of the manuals, and searched any/all blog post on the topic. Apparently, according to you, the certs are VERY DIFFERENT than what is sold to the public AND posted about by the majority of Z-Health practitioners. Also, this begs the question of why Dr. Cobb claims the manuals are central to the certification process. Unfortunately, it seems Z-Health practitioners run out of rational explanations to justify their mentor's claims and then conveniently shrug it off by saying Dr. Cobb teaches/says something else in his certifications. It?s the mental equivalent of wrestling in quicksand and that's putting in nicely.

Oh yeah, it?s not Mosely?s concept, but Melzack?s.

Regnalt also said:

?Dr. Cobb mentions muscles A LOT when performing his exercises. For example, the lateral-middle-medial toe pulls are meant to ?open? joints in the foot to ?turn on? muscles in the leg. Point being it?s not to increase awareness, reduce brain smudges, and reorganize the body schema, etc.? Just because the end goal is to increase joint function does not mean that his method is not to do so through the CNS. Cobb?s makes extremely clear that his intention is to use joint mobility exercises to improve motor and sensory maps. This is almost all he talks about at a cert.

You?re confusing me a bit -- everything goes through the CNS, but what?s unique about how Z does it and what makes it "purely" affect the CNS or in other words why is it more effective than other methods?

Regnalt also said: ?It?s a matter of opinion, but I don't recall Feldenkrais fixing joint dysfunctions, training for sports performance, and throwing KB?s around.?

I?m not sure what you mean by ?fixing joint fixations? but if what you mean is to improve movement and therefore joint function, then obviously both feldenkrais and Z each do this ? both by affecting brain maps, not by changing the structure of the body. As to training for sports performance, again each can be used for this purpose. Although Cobb has developed some specific exercises to train common sporting movements such as split stops, a trained feldenkrais practitioner will obviously work with clients on sporting movements if that is their intention. As to ?throwing kbs around?, I?m not aware that Cobb ever teaches KBs as part of Z training. Of course, you could use Z drills and principles to get better at KBs, but this goes for feldenkrais as well.

Do you really need me to justify the difference between a ?jammed joint? and a joint fixation ? especially when the former is pseudoscience used by Dr. Cobb and the latter describes a lack of proper joint motion? Also, there is a BIG, HUGE, SIGNIFICANT difference between focusing on joints to change maps and focusing on the felt sense of movement to change maps. In fact, one could argue it?s the difference between a meso construct and ecto construct.

Also, I'm not even sure what Z-Health considers structure anymore. Z health literature is centered around dynamic joint mobility and the arthrokinetic reflex. Now, you're arguing that Z-Health doesn't try to change structure. To be clear, Dr. Cobb is teaching courses on how "jammed joints" will decrease performance and eventually cause pain (w/ no scientific evidence to support his premise) and you're comfortable asserting that he's not trying to change structure?

I don?t wish to disparage Dr. Cobb or any Z-Health supporters, but this thread has been a monumental disappointment.
________
medical marijuana dispensary

[toddhargrove]

Bas said: “How is Cobb's approach different from any other "bodywork/exercise" approach?”

I think I tried to answer this question in detail in posts 154 and 176. If that doesn’t help I think we’re lost. The basic summary is that Z seeks to develop coordination through very slow, precise and gentle movement on an isolated joint by joint basis. If there is another modality out there that combines each of these factors (besides the admittedly similar work by Sonnon, from which Z derives) I’m not aware of it.

Bas said: “Why would one take courses from Cobb if ANY modality (here meaning: exercise modality) affects the same systems?”

I think that to the extent that any modality works to relieve pain, it does so ultimately by reducing threat to the CNS. That doesn’t imply that all modalities work to the same extent. I recommend Z because I think it is well designed to reduce threat associated with movement. Foam rolling might also sometimes reduce threat related to movement, but I don’t think this modality is well designed to achieve that effect, and will in fact frequently have the opposite effect.

Bas said: “What sets him apart from self-study of neurophysiology?”

Someone who studies neurophysiology would obviously encounter the same concepts that are presented in Cobb’s courses. In fact, they could take it to a much deeper and refined level if they wanted. However, Cobb’s courses are created to basically teach personal trainers to move from a purely mesodermal no pain no gain perspective to a neurological perspective, and develop some simple and effective techniques for doing so.

Regnalt said: “The certs are VERY DIFFERENT than what is sold to the public AND posted about by the majority of Z-Health practitioners. “

I’m not sure what’s different. It is true that none of his public manuals mention nerve glides – that is something that is only taught at the cert. Probably a good idea too. However, his manuals very conspicuously mention that the purpose of the joint mobility exercises is to provide proprioceptive enhancement in a way that will stimulate the nervous system, reduce protective reflexes such as the startle reflex (similar to Hanna’s red light reflex) and to reduce sensory motor amnesia (another term coined by Hanna and another similarity to Feldenkrais.) The implication that I invented all these concepts after the fact to somehow cover for Cobb is incorrect.

Regnalt said: “but what’s unique about how Z does it and what makes it "purely" affect the CNS or in other words why is it more effective than other methods?”

I wouldn’t say that Z is necessarily more effective than other methods of movement therapy that also intelligently target the CNS such as tai chi, Alexander, or feldenkrais. I certainly do think it is more effective than most of what is out there, which fails to appreciate the potential of slow and gentle movements to reduce threat for the CNS, and the potential for fast and powerful movements to create threat.

Regnalt said: “Also, I'm not even sure what Z-Health considers structure anymore . . . you're comfortable asserting that he's not trying to change structure?”

I am very comfortable in saying that the joint mobility drills (done at the recommended slow speed for beginners) do not seek to change structure. How could they? If you have done the exercises you will know that they are so gentle that they cannot be expected to cause any structural adaptations at all. What could they possibly do, change the connective tissue, make the muscles bigger? All they can really do is enhance proprioception without triggering nociception. Hopefully this will change the way the brain views the movement in question. This is not a mesodermal approach. Of course the term “jammed joints” is scientifically imprecise, but I’m sure it’s just a quick and easy way to explain a complicated idea to the public without going into detail – like saying “motion is lotion” or “your hurts won’t harm you.” Personally, I don't use the phrase.

[regnalt deux]

Regnalt said: ?The certs are VERY DIFFERENT than what is sold to the public AND posted about by the majority of Z-Health practitioners. ?

I?m not sure what?s different. It is true that none of his public manuals mention nerve glides ? that is something that is only taught at the cert. Probably a good idea too. However, his manuals very conspicuously mention that the purpose of the joint mobility exercises is to provide proprioceptive enhancement in a way that will stimulate the nervous system, reduce protective reflexes such as the startle reflex (similar to Hanna?s red light reflex) and to reduce sensory motor amnesia (another term coined by Hanna and another similarity to Feldenkrais.) The implication that I invented all these concepts after the fact to somehow cover for Cobb is incorrect.

We have a failure to communicate. I never implied that you made up anything, but rather superimpose your beliefs unto Z-Health. The bottom line is that a lot of what you?ve written is not stated or implied in the manuals and/or DVD?s, period. To be honest, and I dislike making these kind of assumptions in a public forum, it seems Dr. Cobb is trying to make his method compatible with the latest in neuroscience. I don?t blame him, but the problem is you can?t fit a round peg into a square hole.

Regnalt said: ?but what?s unique about how Z does it and what makes it "purely" affect the CNS or in other words why is it more effective than other methods??

I wouldn?t say that Z is necessarily more effective than other methods of movement therapy that also intelligently target the CNS such as tai chi, Alexander, or feldenkrais. I certainly do think it is more effective than most of what is out there, which fails to appreciate the potential of slow and gentle movements to reduce threat for the CNS, and the potential for fast and powerful movements to create threat.

Again, no disrespect, because I think you have nothing but good intentions, but your interpretation and the Z-Health marketing are completely different.

Regnalt said: ?Also, I'm not even sure what Z-Health considers structure anymore . . . you're comfortable asserting that he's not trying to change structure?"

I am very comfortable in saying that the joint mobility drills (done at the recommended slow speed for beginners) do not seek to change structure. How could they? If you have done the exercises you will know that they are so gentle that they cannot be expected to cause any structural adaptations at all. What could they possibly do, change the connective tissue, make the muscles bigger? All they can really do is enhance proprioception without triggering nociception. Hopefully this will change the way the brain views the movement in question. This is not a mesodermal approach. Of course the term ?jammed joints? is scientifically imprecise, but I?m sure it?s just a quick and easy way to explain a complicated idea to the public without going into detail ? like saying ?motion is lotion? or ?your hurts won?t harm you.? Personally, I don't use the phrase.

The mobility drills are being used to alter a joint that?s causing the arthokinetic reflex. It?s what Dr. Cobb states repeatedly in his videos/texts. His videos show him ?jamming? and ?opening? physical joints (not virtual representations) with mechanical pressure to get a neurological response. This is a meso approach, literally. An ecto approach wouldn?t be overly concerned with the joints per se, but rather the felt sense of movement arising from a variety of inputs. By your logic everything can be considered ecto approach, because it affects the CNS. It simply doesn?t make sense, Todd.

Also, motion is lotion, as a metaphor, doesn?t misrepresent anything ? movement increases circulation/lubrication. Your hurts won?t harm you is inaccurate and dangerous, because sometimes they will. However, jammed joints evoke an outdated biomechanical meme and that?s exactly what everyone in this thread is trying to move away from, right? So, it?s more than scientifically imprecise and carries with it connotations that are misleading and potentially dangerous, IMHO.
________
buy herbalaire vaporizer

[toddhargrove]

Regalt,

I'm not here to discuss whether Z's marketing fails to adequately convey its neurological credentials, I'm just trying to explain Z's actual methods and rationale. That being said, the info on targeting the CNS and using proprioceptive enhancement to reduce sensory motor amnesia and the startle reflex is right in the first couple of pages of the first manual. I think if you went to a cert, you would have no doubt that I am not "superimposing my beliefs on Z" - what I have stated is what Cobb teaches.

I'm surprised at your insistence that Z joint mobility drills are mesodermal. Let me ask you this. Imagine doing a Z drill, say a slow shoulder circle. What part of the mesoderm could possibly be changed by this drill? The only change is to the CNS.

Or imagine doing a feldenkrais pelvic clock lesson, which I assume you would agree is targeted to change the body maps, not the mesoderm. Now imagine doing a standing Z health pelvic circle. The two movements are very similar, done at similar speeds with the similar intention of making a perfect circle with the pelvis. Would you argue that the two exercises were somehow fundamentally different? Would you argue that the feldenkrais lesson is ecto but the Z pelvic circle was not?

[Strawfoot]

Or imagine doing a feldenkrais pelvic clock lesson, which I assume you would agree is targeted to change the body maps, not the mesoderm. Now imagine doing a standing Z health pelvic circle. The two movements are very similar, done at similar speeds with the similar intention of making a perfect circle with the pelvis. Would you argue that the two exercises were somehow fundamentally different? Would you argue that the feldenkrais lesson is ecto but the Z pelvic circle was not?

We are not arguing about wheter z-health can make someone move better or get out of pain. I´m sure it can.

But so can yoga, psychoanalysis or a trip to Lourdes, to paraphrase Feldenkrais.

Also, without arguing semantics, I would like to point out that the goal of the pelvic clock is not to make a perfect circle with the pelvis. The word perfect implies a set or ideal way of doing something which is completely anathema to Feldenkrais work. The goal of any ATM is not to make a perfect movement but to discover something about the way you habitually move. Dr Cobb likes to use the word perfect, in fact he repeatedly stresses the importance of doing every movement "perfect". For me this signifies the very opposite to spontaneity and spontaneous movement.

Actually, I would argue that trying to make a "perfect" movement is an obstacle to learning. And if that is whats taught at your training I would be seriously bothered.

/Martin

[regnalt deux]

Regalt,

I'm not here to discuss whether Z's marketing fails to adequately convey its neurological credentials, I'm just trying to explain Z's actual methods and rationale. That being said, the info on targeting the CNS and using proprioceptive enhancement to reduce sensory motor amnesia and the startle reflex is right in the first couple of pages of the first manual. I think if you went to a cert, you would have no doubt that I am not "superimposing my beliefs on Z" - what I have stated is what Cobb teaches.

I'm surprised at your insistence that Z joint mobility drills are mesodermal. Let me ask you this. Imagine doing a Z drill, say a slow shoulder circle. What part of the mesoderm could possibly be changed by this drill? The only change is to the CNS.

Or imagine doing a feldenkrais pelvic clock lesson, which I assume you would agree is targeted to change the body maps, not the mesoderm. Now imagine doing a standing Z health pelvic circle. The two movements are very similar, done at similar speeds with the similar intention of making a perfect circle with the pelvis. Would you argue that the two exercises were somehow fundamentally different? Would you argue that the feldenkrais lesson is ecto but the Z pelvic circle was not?

I?m ready to agree to disagree. Its post number 217 and you/fellow Z-health colleagues still haven?t been able to answer the questions many of us have asked. Also, I?ve already answered your latest questions in prior responses.

BTW I've asserted multiple times that the certs are VERY DIFFERENT than what is sold to the public AND posted about by the majority of Z-Health practitioners. You disagreed and wrote "I?m not sure what?s different." However, now you write that I'd need to go to a cert to listen to what Dr. Cobb "teaches" to see that you're not superimposing your own ideas onto Z. So, the materials/certs are either very different and it's why I'd need to attend a cert to hear Cobb speak (you said no) or the same and you are superimposing your own ideas (you said no). I'm beyond perplexed, and this is the type of logic the entire thread has espoused, but I do not want anymore clarification. Thanks.

I'm officially retiring from this thread.
________
Kawasaki KLX450R

[Bas Asselbergs]

Todd H: I will give it one last stab:

slow, precise and gentle movement on an isolated joint by joint basis.

And then this:

it is well designed to reduce threat associated with movement.

Why is this "well-designed"? Has it been shown to be better than Tai Chi? Yoga? Okinawan karate? These all entertain slow coordinated and safe motion. They do not require costly certification.

Lastly:

In fact, they could take it to a much deeper and refined level if they wanted. However, Cobb’s courses are created to basically teach personal trainers to move from a purely mesodermal no pain no gain perspective to a neurological perspective, and develop some simple and effective techniques for doing so.

"if they wanted". This implies that those who actually take the courses are lazy, do not want to read studies, do not think for themselves, and need to be spoonfed "simple" techniques. The "effective" is a marketing word without support other than anecdote.

I asked questions in #39, 137 and 174. The answers have been at best, vague statements.

Jason. right you are. I think I may do what regnalt did.

[toddhargrove]

Strawfoot said:

“I would like to point out that the goal of the pelvic clock is not to make a perfect circle with the pelvis. The word perfect implies a set or ideal way of doing something which is completely anathema to Feldenkrais work. . . Actually, I would argue that trying to make a "perfect" movement is an obstacle to learning. And if that is what’s taught at your training I would be seriously bothered.”

Good grief. I have done at least three Feldenkrais lessons in the past three days where the instruction was to make a circle “as round as possible”, or a draw a line as straight as possible. In fact, this morning I listened to a recorded ATM by Frank Wildman, who is perhaps the most famous Feldenkrais instructor in the world, with over thirty years teaching experience. At one point asks to move the shoulder in “as perfect a circle as possible.”

[toddhargrove]

Bas said: “[Yoga and tai chi] do not require costly certification.”

Do you think that people can’t practice Z unless they attend a cert? You can practice Z by buying a DVD, possibly a manual, and maybe visiting a Z practitioner from time to time. It’s simple enough to be practiced on your own and would therefore be cheaper than the typical yoga or tai chi practice where you attend classes. The Z Certification is only if you want to teach Z, was this not already clear? I am sure that getting certified to teach yoga or tai chi or other modalities also costs similar or in some cases far greater amounts of money.

Bas said: "if they wanted". This implies that those who actually take the courses are lazy, do not want to read studies, do not think for themselves, and need to be spoonfed "simple" techniques.”

That’s’ not what I’m implying. Some people want PHDs, some Masters, some BAs, some just a weekend course. Depends on level of interest and time, commitment, etc. David Butler gives short little Explain Pain or Neurodynamics courses, do you object to these because people could get the info with their own self study?

“Has it been shown to be better than Tai Chi? Yoga? Okinawan karate? These all entertain slow coordinated and safe motion.”

I admitted in my previous post that Z is not necessarily better than other modalities that use slow coordinated mindful movement, such as Alexander, Tai Chi and Feldenkrais. I have read many of Mel Siff’s articles and agree with his skepticism about claims that one method is superior to others. That doesn’t mean I’m a relativist – I think some methods are more likely to achieve results than others, even if I can’t prove it. For my clients, I recommend modalities that involve slow, coordinated mindful and interesting movements. The best one for any certain person is probably the one they enjoy, fits into their schedule, and that they will show up for.

So again my point is not to claim that Z is the greatest thing under the sun, just to defend against the suggestions in various posts that Z is a dangerous mesodermal sham. Although several posters have admitted that Z might be a safe and effective method, others have derided it as science fiction and little more than a scam. If we can agree that Z is a reasonable approach to reduce pain and improve movement but not necessarily the best way to do so, I’m OK with that as a compromise and a great way to end this endless thread.

[Strawfoot]

Good grief. I have done at least three Feldenkrais lessons in the past three days where the instruction was to make a circle “as round as possible”, or a draw a line as straight as possible. In fact, this morning I listened to a recorded ATM by Frank Wildman, who is perhaps the most famous Feldenkrais instructor in the world, with over thirty years teaching experience. At one point asks to move the shoulder in “as perfect a circle as possible.”

I consider it an important distinction using "as round as possible" as an instruction for producing a movement during a lesson, compared to stating that the "goal of the lesson is to make as perfect a circle as possible".

Semantics perhaps, but my initial position stands, the goal of an ATM is not to produce a "perfect" (perfect in whose opinion?) movement, but to learn something about ones habitual patterns of movement.

If Frank Wildman likes to use the phrase it´s up to him, i´ve never seen it in his books but perhaps i didn´t pay enough attention to wording

Also, I consider it beside the point wheter certain Feldenkrais trainers use the term perfect now and then. What we were discussing here was the similarities between z-health and Feldenkrais. I still hold the position that the goal of the pelvic clock is not to produce a certain movement per se, but to learn something about oneself and the way you habitually move.

It´s perfectly possible to produce a "perfectly round" hip circle without being aware of what one is doing. The circle might be the most beautifully enacted circle, it´s still completetly irrelevant if it´s not done with awareness. And thats what I consider the missing link.

I find awareness completetly missing from the z-health material I have seen.

[toddhargrove]

Strawfoot,

I will agree that the purpose of Feldenkrais (and Z) is not to make some arbitrary shape such as a perfect circle with the pelvis, but instead to learn how to move the pelvis more intelligently and efficiently. However, the means to do this is trying to make a perfect circle. This way you can learn about your movement limitations, proprioceptive blind spots and areas of “sensory motor amnesia.”

I disagree that Z seeks only to have its students make perfect circles without regard to whether the CNS is learning something productive. In any Z-Heath exercise such as the pelvic circle, you are instructed to observe various rules which will develop subtle movement awareness and ensure that the CNS is not threatened. First and foremost – never move into pain. Second, maintain an appropriate balance of tension and relaxation. This means do the movement in the most efficient way possible, only firing those muscles that are needed to make the movement. Special attention is directed to maintaining relaxation of muscles that fire when the CNS is under subtle threat, such as the hands, face, throat, jaw and abdomen. In other words, reduce effort and strain as Feldenkrais advises. Third, maintain relaxed breathing. Labored or stopped breathing is a sign of working too hard in both Z and Feldenkrais. Fourth, maintain tall posture. Slumping posture is a sign of a mild startle reflex or stress. At more advanced levels of practice, Z students are advised to visualize movements in terms of the movements of the bones as opposed to the contractions of the muscles. Developing this skeletal awareness is a central idea in Feldenkrais as well.

In the event that you cannot do the Z exercises while following the rules above, you are instructed to reduce the speed or range of motion until you can. Expanding your range of motion and speed while following the above rules is a sign that your CNS is becoming more comfortable and less threatened by a particular movement.

Of course, doing a pelvic circle ATM will probably lead to a more subtle and detailed awareness of the pelvis than a simple Z pelvic circle, but the ATM takes 45 minutes and a teacher, while the pelvic circle can be done in less than minute by yourself whenever you want, while just following some simple rules of how to do it. Different exercises, same basic intention – use gentle movement to improve movement maps and reduce movement threat.

[atx4]

A new blog series will give you a glimpse into the basic science, neurophysiology and day-to-day practices that make up Z-Health as a system. In other words, I want to offer a glimpse of the foundational underpinnings of what we do and why we do it so that there is a relational framework for those interested in Z-Health to work from.

The writing will be simple and concise. I know you are as busy as we are and the point is not to make you wade through a bunch of “science-y” terms, but instead to translate the science of what we do to practical day-to-day language and practices.





I can't wait!

[Jason Silvernail]

Yes because using science-y terms clearly turns off what must be their core target audience.
I wonder why that could be a problem?