Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deconstruction of "Z-Health Performance Solutions"

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

  • Bas Asselbergs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • regnalt deux
    replied
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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
    Last edited by regnalt deux; 30-01-2011, 05:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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
    Last edited by Strawfoot; 15-04-2010, 10:40 AM. Reason: spelling

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • regnalt deux
    replied
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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
    Last edited by regnalt deux; 30-01-2011, 05:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • regnalt deux
    replied
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    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
    Last edited by regnalt deux; 30-01-2011, 05:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jason Silvernail
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bas Asselbergs
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by regnalt View Post
    I’ve extensively studied, “officially” and/or via self-education, many somatic movement therapies and must disagree that Feldenkrais and Z-Health share a lot of similarities. 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 wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

    Todd, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but imo. saying that Feldenkrais share a lot of similarities with Z-health is really stretching it.
    /Martin

    Leave a comment:


  • regnalt deux
    replied
    Originally posted by atx4 View Post
    ...and I guess this is Cobb's attempt at an answer:
    http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/568/
    " I have often said, both privately and in public that Pavel is one of the few authorities in our industry that I have read everything he has published ? cover to cover. His work in sifting through scientific and experiential data to build the RKC system is unparalleled in the strength training industry in my opinion. Additionally, I believe he has done more to bring neurology into the forefront of strength training than any other author ? a difficult task that I am immensely familiar with."

    Apparently Dr. Cobb's response included a lot of a-- kissing. I've read a lot of Pavel's work too. He's a bright guy and rather insightful, but his books are the most self-promoting and sales oriented on the market. He plays up the Russian comrade bit to ridiculous proportions and purposely panders to the lowest common denominator. Also, perhaps Dr. Cobb forgot, but Mel Siff got his MSc in brain research and PhD in physiology/bio-mechanics and has influenced A LOT more people regarding neurology/strength training than he and Pavel put together, IMHO.
    ________
    iolite portable vaporizer
    Last edited by regnalt deux; 30-01-2011, 05:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • regnalt deux
    replied
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    Jason,
    I will admit I am skeptical about the validity of the tests shown in those vids. I have tried them myself with little success, although I know of many others who have tried them and believe they work. In any event, I believe there is a great amount of value and a solid scientific support for the vast majority of what Cobb teaches.
    Hi Todd,

    First, as I posted earlier, the videos are very concerning. Dr. Cobb bases his method, in large part, on the arthrokinetic reflex. However, if ?jammed joints? don?t cause a problem, which is the case in many situations, then it brings Z-Health into question. On that note, Dr. Cobb mentions on his blog that ?jammed joints? will decrease performance and eventually cause pain, but what scientific evidence supports these statements. He?s boldly stating that people should correct a problem, that?s not proven to be a problem, before it becomes a bigger problem. And I see this rationale as problematic!

    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    I agree with your description of the sources for Z material, and would add in David Butler and Lorimer Mosely. As such, I disagree with your statement that Z is primarily a mesoderm based system. The Z mobility exercises do not target the mesoderm, they target the ectoderm. The focus on the joints is only a means to activate mechanoreceptors and talk to the nervous system.
    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. The connection between Neurodynamics-Z-health is no greater than the connection between Neurodynamics-traditional stretching. I?m not sure how you?re fitting in the work of Lorimer Mosely.
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    Although Sonnon?s exercises are very similar, he explains their benefits in mesodermal terms ? stretching and lubricating fascia, synovial fluids, etc. Cobb?s intention is purely to affect the CNS.
    I agree that intention matters a great deal, but don?t see much of a difference between Cobb/Sonnon. Sure, Dr. Cobb focuses on precise joint movement more than Sonnon, but you're taking the liberty of extrapolating that this will somehow purely affect the CNS. Furthermore, 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.
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    As to the idea that Z has no somatic focus like feldenkrais or Hanna, I agree to some extent that feldenkrais will focus more attention on sensory experience than Z. However, this is also an aspect of Z, as a primary goal of each exercise is to feel movement in a certain target area.
    And a bodybuilder wants to feel the burn and pump in the area their training, but that doesn?t make it a somatic based experience. Dr. Cobb is focusing on feeling movement in target areas of the mesoderm and not exploring the perception of a felt sense within the context of a specific movement. Big difference, IMHO.
    Originally posted by toddhargrove View Post
    As a second year feldenkrais student and someone who has done several Z certifications, I see far more similarities than differences between the two approaches. In essence, both use slow, safe mindful movement to target the CNS, attempting to change movement patterns and body maps, and hopefully reduce pain and increase movement efficiency. In case anyone is interested, I blog about these issues in relation to Z, feldenkrais and general physical training at toddhargrove.wordpress.com.
    I?ve extensively studied, ?officially? and/or via self-education, many somatic movement therapies and must disagree that Feldenkrais and Z-Health share a lot of similarities. It?s a matter of opinion, but I don't recall Feldenkrais fixing joint dysfunctions, training for sports performance, and throwing KB?s around.

    Take care!

    Reg
    ________
    host and design
    Last edited by regnalt deux; 30-01-2011, 05:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • toddhargrove
    replied
    Jason,

    I will admit I am skeptical about the validity of the tests shown in those vids. I have tried them myself with little success, although I know of many others who have tried them and believe they work. In any event, I believe there is a great amount of value and a solid scientific support for the vast majority of what Cobb teaches.

    Regnalt,

    I agree with your description of the sources for Z material, and would add in David Butler and Lorimer Mosely. As such, I disagree with your statement that Z is primarily a mesoderm based system. The Z mobility exercises do not target the mesoderm, they target the ectoderm. The focus on the joints is only a means to activate mechanoreceptors and talk to the nervous system. Although Sonnon’s exercises are very similar, he explains their benefits in mesodermal terms – stretching and lubricating fascia, synovial fluids, etc. Cobb’s intention is purely to affect the CNS.

    As to the idea that Z has no somatic focus like feldenkrais or Hanna, I agree to some extent that feldenkrais will focus more attention on sensory experience than Z. However, this is also an aspect of Z, as a primary goal of each exercise is to feel movement in a certain target area. As a second year feldenkrais student and someone who has done several Z certifications, I see far more similarities than differences between the two approaches. In essence, both use slow, safe mindful movement to target the CNS, attempting to change movement patterns and body maps, and hopefully reduce pain and increase movement efficiency. In case anyone is interested, I blog about these issues in relation to Z, feldenkrais and general physical training at toddhargrove.wordpress.com.

    Leave a comment:


  • atx4
    replied
    ...and I guess this is Cobb's attempt at an answer:
    http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/568/

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X