Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deconstruction of "Z-Health Performance Solutions"

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

  • Diane
    replied
    Alluding to structural tissues as pain generators is what made your statement peripheralist. I stand by my statement. I will add, though, that you may be part way there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig Liebenson
    replied
    Originally posted by Diane View Post
    Actually that whole statement is a peripheralist statement.
    Diane,
    I beg to differ. The peripheralist wants the patient to attribute to their skills. The health care professional who wants the patient to learn how to manage pain on their own by enhanced coping skills & improved non-protective motor skills is the one who focuses on the mind.

    "Patients should attribute to themselves rather than another as they learn to cope w/ MP & un-learn guarded motor programs. "

    Leave a comment:


  • wunger122
    replied
    I have used the Z-Health system (r and i phase) for four years. Are the mobility movements extraordinary? No.. But taken as a system, I have found, for me at least, the best thing I have ever done. I have practiced feldenkrais and hana somatics, both intelligent movement approaches, however the Z-Health, for whatever reason, works immediately. I have never taken a course, just used the dvd's.
    I have practiced Judo for 35 years and Z-Health keeps me going and yes I still see chiros, physios and osteopaths.
    From an unbiased source,
    Wayne Unger
    Victoria BC

    Leave a comment:


  • Ken Jakalski
    replied
    If a coach or trainer tells me he or she has a new protocol or training device that will increase an athlete’s speed, I can look to three things that might be changing as a result of those protocols or devices: metabolic energy expenditure, sprinting endurance, and sprinting mechanics. All these are measurable. If I see no change in any of these, I have to question whether these protocols can be linked to the observed improvements.

    If I look at the Z-Health, and consider that even eye movements may be dictated by imbalances and weaknesses, then shouldn’t the corrective protocol reveal that something relative to the eye movements has now changed as a result of my interventions?

    Can any system based on muscular movement or joint positioning be suggested as the means of pain correction if there is no way to assess if the protocol has resulted in changes in the way those muscles or joints are moving after the interventions?

    I guess what I’m asking is if movement therapies don’t make changes in movement, might this be a good reason to believe what Diane has stated, that joints don't "rule" the system but that the nervous system itself does?

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    The peripheralist mentality makes the bodies hardware (i.e. pain generators - jt, muscle, etc.) the target of therapy rather than the bodies software (CNS).
    Actually that whole statement is a peripheralist statement.
    It is not "muscle" or "joint, etc." that generates "pain." Even when actual pathology such as advanced rheumatoid arthritis or something is ravaging tissue, all you'll get is nociception.
    It's the brain that generates "pain," projects it to the cognitive/evaluative bits and to the "virtual" bodies, and the PNS.
    Nociception never shuts off. It has something called "maintained discharge", sending weak signaling even in the absense of stimuli - a drippy faucet sort of thing, into the dorsal horn. The dorsal horn is sort of a catch basin with a sponge in the bottom, metaphorically speaking, to dampen the signal. Nociception is neither sufficient nor necessary to generate "pain." Pain can also occur in the complete absence of input, e.g., phantom limb. It can be tough to take that on board but it's what the neuromatrix model is all about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig Liebenson
    replied
    Originally posted by Diane View Post

    2. the idea that nothing and nobody, even magic-handed and magic-thinking chiropractors, or osteopaths, or acupuncturists, or (insert name of human primate social grooming profession) can "change" someone's body from outside it, because a little something called a nervous system is in control, and must be dealt with one way or another
    Sweet. The notion that there is a wisdom of the body to heal itself seem forgotten when manual therapists expect manual therapy to "fix" or "cure" musculoskeletal pain (MP). Patients should attribute to themselves rather than another as they learn to cope w/ MP & un-learn guarded motor programs. The peripheralist mentality makes the bodies hardware (i.e. pain generators - jt, muscle, etc.) the target of therapy rather than the bodies software (CNS).

    One's profession does not matter as much as one's approach. One's ability to provide somatic education would seem to distiguish appropriate rehab vs inappropriate. Who can provide safe, fear - dispelling reactivation advice to people w/ MP? The profession does not matter it is the orientation & skill that does.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keats Snideman
    replied
    Its been a while since I"ve frequented this forum and its great to see someone like Dr. Craig Liebenson here! As a chiroptactor, he is as "evidence-based" as I've seen and has done some really great work in his textbooks and writings to promote an active, "patient-centered" approach to rehabilitation.


    Keats

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Let me guess - you've had chiro training, right?

    Originally posted by Craig Liebenson View Post
    Diane

    Do you believe chiropractors are worse than other health care professionals when it comes to scientific honesty?
    Busted.
    Generally speaking, yes. I do. As a general rule. Chiro has always seemed to me to be a business training selling a product called manual care, instead of a profession which includes manual therapists, many of whom use a business model. To be sure, many in my profession see no problem with that idea. I always have.

    I prefer to blast all those - regardless of profession - who are not outcome-based or patient-centered.
    Perhaps you are a bit different then. There are lots of chiros on this board who seem just fine.

    People who prescribe care that is debunked (i.e. prolonged bed rest for LBP, routine imagining & premature surgery, overtreatment w/ opiates or manual therapy). But, to blast a profession seems against the general high-standards of this Forum.
    We blast whatever we think needs blasting. But we do not attack individuals or let individuals be attacked by others. If you're someone who separates who he is, does, and thinks, apart from each other, this will become evident. If you're someone who has conflated himself into /wants to waste time being defensive about something like the profession called chiro, largely indefensible IMO, then you would be wasting our time too.
    So far, I did not get that impression. Although (apparently) wedded to mesodermalist ideas, so far, you've been a perfect gentleman and you are certainly welcome here. We (I at least) would like to expose you to:

    1. pain science, neuroscience

    2. the idea that nothing and nobody, even magic-handed and magic-thinking chiropractors, or osteopaths, or acupuncturists, or (insert name of human primate social grooming profession) can "change" someone's body from outside it, because a little something called a nervous system is in control, and must be dealt with one way or another

    3. the idea that manual therapies for sure, perhaps all the therapies, are shot through and through with hubris and operator models, that in fact perhaps the only way the entire field will advance, given the context of advanced neuro and pain science, is if somehow the manual therapies can evolve some interactor models, change their thinking somehow, or at least admit that all the mesodermalist treatment concepts are provisional, as-if ideas, not reality-based. Oh, and stop imagining that its ever possible to wed biomechanics to pareiodolic value-judgments about "posture" or "asymmetry" or "weakness" etc. (Don't even let get me started on "weakness" or "muscle-testing"...)

    If any of this deconstruction interests you, we'd love to have you. Many brains make lighter work. If you are going to be here only to try (and fail) to defend the (so-called) profession known as chiro, then I don't think you'd be a good fit. Although you'd still be welcome regardless, unless you should begin attacking or being otherwise annoying. :angel:

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig Liebenson
    replied
    Diane,

    "Keats,

    1. Please accept my apologies. It appears I had the wrong take on you. Welcome back.

    2. I have an astronomically high index of suspicion about any treatment system designed by a chiropractor. They seem to pull most of their ideas out of clouds or something. They would love to insist the body/nervous system works as they say it does instead of the way it really does, i.e., arbitrarily and according to its own individual trajectory most of the time. They'll take one tiny treatment idea (usually not original) then squeeze it to mush, expand it up into a multi-level system which they try to become rich from. All packageing/no content.

    3. Every chiro with a system is only trying to sell it.

    4. Chiro systems all contradict each other.

    3. I confess, I saw that Cobbs is a chiro and thought, I'm not going to get sucked anywhere near this thread or near Keats.
    __________________"

    Diane

    Do you believe chiropractors are worse than other health care professionals when it comes to scientific honesty?
    I prefer to blast all those - regardless of profession - who are not outcome-based or patient-centered. People who prescribe care that is debunked (i.e. prolonged bed rest for LBP, routine imagining & premature surgery, overtreatment w/ opiates or manual therapy). But, to blast a profession seems against the general high-standards of this Forum.

    Sincerely,
    Craig

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • atx4
    replied
    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!
    Last edited by Diane; 11-06-2010, 11:06 PM. Reason: Advertising removed

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Strawfoot; 19-04-2010, 12:42 PM. Reason: spelling and clarification

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by toddhargrove; 18-04-2010, 03:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    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.”

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X