Deconstruction of "Z-Health Performance Solutions"

[Mike T Nelson]

You are correct, I was confusing the two.

It is from mechanical deformation.

I also agree with your phrase in the essay The Oirgins of Pain "when the origin is mechanical the solution to the problem lies in movement"

I remember Dr. Cobb saying "if movement can get you into pain, it should be able to get you out of pain'

Mike N

[Mike T Nelson]

In regards to the importance of looking at eye movements in relation to proprioception

From the paper below in the conclusion "…there is now considerable experimental and clinical evidence that inflowing proprioceptive signals from the EOM make a vital contribution"

From http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...3&blobtype=pdf
Mike N

[Diane]

Mike, you said:

One demo I do is to do some muscle tests while the athlete is laying on their back until I find one that tests weak (let's say it is glute med). I then passively open the cuboid joint on the same side ankle, then retest the glute med (manual muscle test). Most of the time (not all) it will test strong. The premise is that "jammed" joints (joints not functioning 100%) are providing noxious stimuli (may or may not be painful as pain lives in the brain) to the nervous system, and thus comprising muscle function as a protective mechanism.

I read the first paper, and have a couple points I'd like to draw your attention to:

1. on page two the author makes it clear that he is going to continue his paper by looking at the entirety of human performance function from a 'joint' perspective:

Dynamic contributions arise from feedforward and feedback neuromotor control over the skeletal muscles crossing the joint. Underlying the effectiveness of the dynamic restraints are the biomechanical and physical characteristics of the joint.

2. in the definition of "interoceptive field" (p. 3) only alimentary canal and viscera organs are considered. In fact, not just proprioception, but also interoceptive information from vascular structures and neural containers within the somatic part of the body, is read by the brain at all times. ( You can check out Jänig for more detail).

But back to the quote by you Mike, here's the issue I have: There are other structures that pass by the hip and are lodged in the foot, that you've skipped right over in your explanation, i.e. neural structures. A single neuron's length goes from dorsal root ganglion to the foot, where it will embed in a muscle, or joint, or skin, or vessel, or a layer of "nerve" or neural container. A single nerve cell. None of this nerve anatomy, or its primary (somatic motor veto-able) physiology is being addressed by you or the rest of the z-gang. Furthermore there is a fair bit of vascular structure in the leg, which, if it has a problem, can result in pain inhibition as well.

It would seem that you are bypassing the body of work that has been done in the field of pain science, and how it integrates into a greater understanding of the nervous system as a whole. Pain doesn't come from joints. Joints are mostly innocent even though they are blamed for everything and are the object of a great deal of misplaced attention from practitioners.

I presume it's because you haven't studied the nervous system from the point of view as a threat detector/life maintainer, or found it important to do so, but biologically your joint-based paradigm/system and clinical thinking make less sense to me than when, for example, I consider all the neural structures present in the entire leg, continuous from DRG to toe, all of which are hardwired into the brain as much as any joint receptor is, and quite able to access the non-conscious brain ahead of joint receptors to signal that they are having a problem, whereupon the brain may well inhibit any voluntary movement it regards (in any given moment) as a threat to itself and it's associated distributed-ness, then dis-inhibit movement/strength immediately once it has decided the threat is gone.

The point I'm trying to make here is that joints don't "rule" the system the way your paradigm implies, the nervous system itself does, and it will intervene or permit movement or prevent it, in spite of any z-anything, or in spite of any practitioner operating according to a joint treatment construct.

Can you see what I'm saying? I submit not just to you but to the z people in general that your entire premise is off base, suffers from mesodermal confirmation bias that does not hold up very well when examined from a pain science perspective or even a simple biological organism perspective. The entire system makes more sense when studied from a purely ectodermal standpoint. The brain will prioritize that which delivers groceries and O₂, first to itself, then to its vasculature, and in short order. It will sacrifice any bone, joint, muscle, ligament or tendon that stops it doing so.

It's not just you or z-people, I'm also saying that all joint based examinations and treatment constructs and views into/of the nervous system are equally challenged by such habits of thought (i.e. pretty much the entire orthodigm). I'm also suggesting that it's the wrong way to look at the function of the human body, i.e. from the point of view of mesoderm, of any sort.

Let me define: mesoderm -> structural components: ectoderm-> neural portion; physical/physiological/functional.

If that sounds like the beginning of a debate, let's go for it.

[Diane]

I found the bit in Jänig's book where he explains interoception arising from parts of the body commonly associated with only proprioception and exteroception: From p. 36, Ch. 2 of The Integrative Action of the Autonomic Nervous System: Neurobiology of Homeostasis, by Wilfred Jänig:

Sherrington (1900) also had a clear concept about thermoreception and nociception of skin. Would he have subsumed skin senses related to thermal stimuli and to tissue damaging or potentially damaging stimuli and sensations elicited from deep somatic tissues that are related to the excitation of afferent Aδ and C-fibres under the category interoception? From the discussion of the topic “The skin and common sensation” in his textbook chapter “Cutaneous sensations” (Sherrington 1900) I would say that the answer is in the affirmative. On p. 969 Sherrington says

…By common sensation is understood that sum of sensations referred, not to external agents, but to the processes of the animal body. Its “object” is the body itself – the material “me”. Sensations derived from the body tissues and organs possess strong affective tone; while sensations of special sense are relatively free from affective tone.

Here I will subsume the sensory processes related to the activation of afferent receptors connected to Aδ or C-axons under the category interoception meaning that these senses refer to the different body tissues. This view will become relevant in subchapter 2.6. It is similar or identical to that propagated by Craig and Saper. Craig (and others) claim that pain, thermal sensations, itch, muscular and visceral sensations (along with hunger, thirst, air hunger and other feelings from the body) are aspects of the representation of the physiological condition of the different body tissues and therefore belong to interoception (Craig 2003a; see below). Saper claims that nociceptive sensations are related to mechanical, thermal, and metabolic stresses of deep somatic and visceral and superficial body tissues. These sensations monitor tissue integrity and are internally directed, i.e., they are concerned with that state of the body itself (Saper 2002). Saper says that it were “reasonable to describe pain per se as a visceral modality.” However, I would not go as far as that.

[Jason Silvernail]

I want to make sure Luke's questions don't get buried, as they're important for the Z gang to answer:

What is the origin of this compromised joint function?
How do you reliably test this?
When you treat this compromised joint, what is the therapeutic mechanism (in terms of physiology) that restores the function, and how has it addressed the origin?

Mike-
What's a cuboid joint? How would opening it make the gluteus medius test stronger?
Isn't this just like Applied Kinesiology, except instead of having them hold bottles of nutrients, you waggle a foot joint? I presume the foot is the location of the so-called "cuboid joint" since this is where the cuboid bone is located?

Your mechanism of stimulating joint receptors works for any active range of movement or any passive movement of any joint by an operator, so you're not really offering any "explanation" that can't be applied also to my example of walking to the fridge for a beer. Maybe that's in the "B" phase...

[Diane]

And:

In regards to the importance of looking at eye movements in relation to proprioception

From the paper below in the conclusion "…there is now considerable experimental and clinical evidence that inflowing proprioceptive signals from the EOM make a vital contribution"

Proprioception of what? Contribution to what? near as I can make out on first readthrough it's to eye function.

[Keats Snideman]

Mike, you said:

I read the first paper, and have a couple points I'd like to draw your attention to:

1. on page two the author makes it clear that he is going to continue his paper by looking at the entirety of human performance function from a 'joint' perspective:

2. in the definition of "interoceptive field" (p. 3) only alimentary canal and viscera organs are considered. In fact, not just proprioception, but also interoceptive information from vascular structures and neural containers within the somatic part of the body, is read by the brain at all times. ( You can check out Jänig for more detail).

But back to the quote by you Mike, here's the issue I have: There are other structures that pass by the hip and are lodged in the foot, that you've skipped right over in your explanation, i.e. neural structures. A single neuron's length goes from dorsal root ganglion to the foot, where it will embed in a muscle, or joint, or skin, or vessel, or a layer of "nerve" or neural container. A single nerve cell. None of this nerve anatomy, or its primary (somatic motor veto-able) physiology is being addressed by you or the rest of the z-gang. Furthermore there is a fair bit of vascular structure in the leg, which, if it has a problem, can result in pain inhibition as well.

It would seem that you are bypassing the body of work that has been done in the field of pain science, and how it integrates into a greater understanding of the nervous system as a whole. Pain doesn't come from joints. Joints are mostly innocent even though they are blamed for everything and are the object of a great deal of misplaced attention from practitioners.

I presume it's because you haven't studied the nervous system from the point of view as a threat detector/life maintainer, or found it important to do so, but biologically your joint-based paradigm/system and clinical thinking make less sense to me than when, for example, I consider all the neural structures present in the entire leg, continuous from DRG to toe, all of which are hardwired into the brain as much as any joint receptor is, and quite able to access the non-conscious brain ahead of joint receptors to signal that they are having a problem, whereupon the brain may well inhibit any voluntary movement it regards (in any given moment) as a threat to itself and it's associated distributed-ness, then dis-inhibit movement/strength immediately once it has decided the threat is gone.

The point I'm trying to make here is that joints don't "rule" the system the way your paradigm implies, the nervous system itself does, and it will intervene or permit movement or prevent it, in spite of any z-anything, or in spite of any practitioner operating according to a joint treatment construct.

Can you see what I'm saying? I submit not just to you but to the z people in general that your entire premise is off base, suffers from mesodermal confirmation bias that does not hold up very well when examined from a pain science perspective or even a simple biological organism perspective. The entire system makes more sense when studied from a purely ectodermal standpoint. The brain will prioritize that which delivers groceries and O₂, first to itself, then to its vasculature, and in short order. It will sacrifice any bone, joint, muscle, ligament or tendon that stops it doing so.

It's not just you or z-people, I'm also saying that all joint based examinations and treatment constructs and views into/of the nervous system are equally challenged by such habits of thought (i.e. pretty much the entire orthodigm). I'm also suggesting that it's the wrong way to look at the function of the human body, i.e. from the point of view of mesoderm, of any sort.

Let me define: mesoderm -> structural components: ectoderm-> neural portion; physical/physiological/functional.

If that sounds like the beginning of a debate, let's go for it.

Diane, this was the most informative and helpful post yet. Thanks! This is EXACTLY the tpye of commentary and insight I was hoping to find here.

[Diane]

Keats, there's plenty more where that came from.

[Diane]

I'd say that to convince me that zstuff (or any other joint based treatment system that costs $2000 for each "level") is worth paying any attention to, it would have to show me that it has fully considered, and can supercede treatment constructs based on consideration of the human as a biological organism with all the same biological constraints and need to adapt to allostatic (extrinsic) perturbations as well as homeostatic (intrinsic) perturbations as other vertebrates, plus psychosocial constraints; furthermore...

1. That it has faced Occam's Razor and survived (this has definitely not happened..);

2. That it could be potentially useful for all human organisms, not just vigorous sport enthusiasts;

3. That it has considered and theoretically (or by experiment) eliminated any other potential input to the nervous system besides the input presumed to come from joints, in particular the ANS;

4. That it is fully cognizant of and resonant with pain theory as developed by Wall/Melzack/Moseley, and made more user friendly by Butler and Shacklock. Not just lip service, not just some repackaged name-dropping chirodigm, but a true advance.

5. That it does not base any assessment/treatment on "muscle testing" which has too many spurious factors clinging to it to take it seriously.

That's all for now. I'm sure I'll think of a couple other things later.

[cneupert]

I don't have time to dig deeper into some of the neural explanations right now (regarding Jason's post #94). I hope to tackle this sometime in the near future.

I would like to say at this point though, that seems to be a general misconception that Z health is just about joint mobility, or that joint problems are the sole source of dysfunction. The joint mobility aspect of Z health is the most easily recognizable and in most cases the quickest route to effect the desired change in function/ROM/pain. My understanding of the system is that joint mobility is a tool to tap into the nervous system much like other tools that we are more familiar with (please remember that there are other tools- see my previous posts). Pain or dysfunction as you all know can be caused by nociceptive sprouting, or synaptic rewiring if you will, that is not necessarily potentiated by active injury (ie central pain etc). Use of movement, as we know, can stimulate mechoreceptors to override or inhibit nociceptor input to the CNS. Having someone perform an active joint mobility drill (as long as they are following the no pain rule and usually not performed at the site of pain or intial injury) is a safe way to begin to inhibit nociceptive input and begin the neuromuscular re-education process through mechanoreceptive stimulation. You are right - most movement programs do to some extent follow this pathway. The difference is that Z health has taken the movement skills evident in life and athletic pursuits, distilled them into a template, integrated them with visual and vestibular stimulus as needed (along with some other tools like light touch, nerve glides etc), and provided a framework to assess and reassess the client very quickly and as simply as possible.

In response to the question how do you get more info without spending $2000? Try setting up a session with a Z certified trainer near you to experience it for yourself. I don't say this to market - I just mean that experience will tell you a lot. This stuff is difficult to distill down and explain because it is so comprehensive, and there still is much we don't know about the human nervous system. There was a lot of resistance to the idea that the earth was round too. . .

[Diane]

There was a lot of resistance to the idea that the earth was round too. . .

Are you suggesting that here at somasimple we are opposed to the round planet theory?
I propose that there is a great deal that IS known about the nervous system, and any theory or treatment system that chooses to ignore most of it in favor of what it can "sell" of it, isn't giving what IS known fair consideration.

[Barrett Dorko]

Courtney,

This "there still is much we don't know about the human nervous system" line is getting a little old.

Comparing anybody to a flat-earther if they resist going further into this complex and confusing "template" of techniques, ideas and suppositions regarding normal as opposed to "athletic" performance probably wouldn't best the best idea, but that's just my opinion.

[Mike T Nelson]

I just have a quick sec here before I go lift, so this will be short.

Diane, from my understand I think we do agree on most of it. Z Health does respect the overall nervous system and it is NOT just about an active joint mobility drill that is just one tool. It is a system to analyze and optimize movement and many times it works to get people out of pain with a mechanical deformation origin. Looks like Courtney covered that above.

Yes, I agree that the body is a survival based organism. Check out the startle reflex in this picture! In Z Health we work to not add any tension or startle to the body.

As to why the cuboid joint targets the glute med primarily, my guess is from the gait pattern as the foot impacts the ground. I did try to do some research on that I was not able to find much. Anecdotally, I have done the demo repeated in over 50 people now and 45 of them responded positively. I know that is not what you are looking for, but I will keep digging and let you know what I find.

If anyone lives in the MN area, I will offer the first 3 people a free Z Health session and they can make their own judgments. I did not believe any of it until I had a session my myself and spent the whole next day with Dr. Cobb watching sessions. Drop me a note here if you are interested want would like to donate and our of your time.

Mike N

[Diane]

Here's an old thread about flat earth.

Mike, I think Jason and Luke are still waiting for you to explain what you mean about cuboid joints.

[Jon Newman]

Possible Harper's Index entry

10:1

Ratio of marketing to substance in a conversation with people certified in zhealth.

I'd like to issue a challenge. Since this thread is dedicated to and understood to be about zhealth let's see if it's possible to explain empirical observations without actually stating "zhealth" or it's derivatives as if that is somehow helpful or furthers understanding.

For example, I'd love to read, like Jason, why Courtney thinks she had hammer toes (that is, what led to her having hammer toes), what she did about them (describe the exercise(s) beyond "Last month I had been doing a lot of joint mobility"), and if possible describe the proposed causal chain that led to the "no hammer toes" condition.

Or perhaps less personal, someone can explain the story of the fellow (not described in this thread) who increased his vertical jump by three inches almost instantaneously. Why wasn't he jumping that high before? Is this a permanent change. If he does the exercises again the next day will he increase his jump three additional inches, if not, why not?