Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deconstruction of "Z-Health Performance Solutions"

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

  • Jon Newman
    replied
    Hello Zhealth advocates:

    Does Randy's post accurately sum up the general construct underlying your approach?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jason Silvernail
    replied
    Great post, Randy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Geoff, you are a gentleman and a scholar, based on that last post. You are welcome anytime to exercise robust thought as well as 'cuboid joints'.

    One small perception correction: the forum is provided/maintained/administered by someone else (with the same initials BD, however...) i.e., Bernard Delalande, based in France.
    Last edited by bernard; 07-08-2007, 04:26 PM. Reason: "la" missing in my lastname

    Leave a comment:


  • GeoffNeupert
    replied
    Everyone,

    Thanks for taking the time to read and post on this subject. This has been an enlightening experience for me.

    My take home lesson from all this is: How much "why" do I have to know, do I want to know, do I want to spend time learning, based on my current life situation? My immediate answer is, "I'm not sure." But it definitely gives me food for thought--and I'm always hungry.

    I will not be posting again on this subject because it's time-intensive and I have other things I'm "supposed" to be doing.

    Thank you, Mr. Dorko, for providing this forum. I will continue to peruse it because it appears to be an outstanding resource for learning. Perhaps I will make it to your seminar when you pass by my way.

    Thank you again.

    Geoff Neupert

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Randy, I believe that's the most I've ever seen you write all in one place, ever. It answered a few puzzles for me, so thanks. I concur with "Answers given as if parts of the system are already accepted aren't helpful", and your observation, "So I am not a critic of the system, for exercise, my criticism lies in the advertisement and claims I now see being made of it. That it is not only a treatment for medical and painful conditions, but that they border on the incredible. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"

    On the other hand, "(I'm not calling anyone old, but some here ask "which one?" when you talk about what they were doing at the turn of the century)." - I don't think anyone here is over 107.. at least one of us was born in the first half of the last century though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bas Asselbergs
    replied
    Thanks Barrett. Maybe if you'd charge $2,000, you'd have a true flock of adoring followers too....

    One more thing that bothers me (and trust me, the list is long):
    "What's the number one criteria? Performance."

    For athletes maybe. For practitioners who are getting success in their own way, the number one criterium for adopting other methods is higher scientific plausiblility and/or evidence of a better level......than anecdotal or "experience".

    I can not help but tell my old story to the new ones here:
    Chronic (24 yr +) thoracic pain, never obtained relief with MFR, HVLA, CST, injections, exercises, ART, cranial osteopathy etc etc...obtained lasting relief when being taken through "past-life regression therapy" while being "emotionally unwound" simultaneously.


    Based on your concept, Mike, I should not really ask "how, what, why" or "ARE YOU CRAZY?!?!", but chalk this up to experience and go with past-life regression as my choice of treattment for chronic pain..........

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    Bas,

    Great question. Asking for money from others if they want to be in your presence while learning what you might teach them is a complex and potentially corrupting thing - and I would know.

    For the record, my own one day workshops go for $199.00, a fee that can drop to $149.00 if you attend with friends or colleagues. That's for everything I know in 6 hours. Personally, I receive a small percentage of this fee, the rest going to Cross Country Education.

    After over 30 years of watching these fees grow and classes fill (or not) I am convinced that people are paying you for two things: promises of power and rituals they find magical and entertaining. I'm not certain that there's any real teaching or learning necessary.

    Given that, I'll let you guys figure out how it is the "Z" system manages to command such a high fee.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bas Asselbergs
    replied
    In the beginning of this thread, I asked specific questions, that went largely unanswered. I should NOT have posed them: instead I should have asked:
    "What is DIFFERENT about this approach, in its effects and workings, to justify the course fee?"
    Physiology is the same for all; as are neuroanatomy, and neurophysiology, and arthrokinematic principles, and brain structure and function (largely)..... So WHAT is so different about this that it requires big $$ to learn?

    Leave a comment:


  • Randy Dixon
    replied
    Geoff,
    I think we have explained several times it is the why that we are concerned with, not the results. We have all seen "GREAT RESULTS" from our own work and from everyone selling or using a system. If you aren't interested in "why" then there isn't going to be much here for you.


    and the rest:

    I haven't seen much about Z-health theory, except what I've seen here but let me give it a shot. First, we need to accept the presence of the withrdrawal and startle reflex. The body is an organism geared to survival and it has inherent reflexes to protect itself. The startle reflex, for example is part of our fight or flight programming to cover up vital areas, it generally involves movements that we would consider flexion. In todays society we are often inappropriately activating the startle reflex without resolving the issue, and we are left in a "chronic startle state" (flexion), withdrawal can lead to a similar tightness caused by extension and the patterns can be observed for each. We also have a righting reflex, it keeps us upright and straight, it relies heavily on the visual system. We largely orient are bodies according to what we see, the eyes will seek to remain level, if they become unlevel, either due to dysfunction of either the eyes themselves or postural changes, (twisted pelvis, unlevel shoulders, forward or bent head position) the body will attempt to compensate to return them to level or to orient itself by the righting reflex to what it believes is upright given the input from the eyes. The next concept we need to understand is the integration of the whole body, each part affects the whole, the part where the dysfunction is felt is not necessarily the part that is actually the cause. There are some predictable and testable patterns that can be observed, people usually exhibit lateralization, and there are things such as Janda's crossed syndromes or that people sometimes walk swinging the same hand and leg together during walking. If we correct the pattern, we correct the dysfunction. One of the results of chronic withdrawal or dysfunctional movement patterns is activation of the arthrokinematic joint reflex (AJR), or joint protective reflex. This can be activated either by chronic dysfunction or by an acute episode, such as a sudden stretch, and it fails to resolve. If we take all the joints through their active ROM, in all planes and at different speeds, the nervous system recognizes that previously inhibited joint motion can now be moved safely. Once the nervous system recognizes the fact that all joints are healthy, the AJR is inhibited, allowing whole body movements to be done correctly and smoothly.

    I could jazz it up some with terms like Type 1 and 2 afferents, cascading hormonal responses, oculocomotor, etc. but it would remain the same. Does it look familiar? Because to everyone on this list that has been here awhile it does. It is the simplified version of the same explanations that every other system gives, and it is, at best, surface dressing.

    On the other hand, I came across z-health quite some time ago from Supertraining, at that time it just billed itself as an exercise system and I thought, and think, it was a good idea. It worked on things like body awareness, balance, flexibility, coordination and other attributes that were more neurological than muscular and I thought it was a good step in a direction that was largely being ignored. Scott Sonnon's Bodyflow, Egoscue's Patch, ProbodX, Crossfit were other systems that worked in more or less the same way and I liked them all to some degree. So I am not a critic of the system, for exercise, my criticism lies in the advertisement and claims I now see being made of it. That it is not only a treatment for medical and painful conditions, but that they border on the incredible. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof but I have seen no evidence, other than testimonials which every other system, even the most bizzare have plenty of. Exercise geared to them is beneficial to most people's pain states, so is self efficacy, motivation, touch, placebo, etc. What is needed is an explanation, of why z-health is different than other systems. What mechanisms are involved and how do you know this? How do you know the reliability and validity of your testing or even of your results?

    Answers given as if parts of the system are already accepted aren't helpful. For example, we would open up the joints and then test the gait, the gait test showed great improvement. Neither the opening of the joints or the gait test has been show to have any validity yet, so referring to either isn't helpful.

    Let me say that I know it is difficult to be in the position you are in now. You are facing what seems to be a difficult crowd. Understand, that you are not the first person to present this forum with a similar system based on similar evidence. If we are a bit impatient and maybe even short tempered about it, it isn't a result of this thread alone but also of many others and for some, over many, many, years. (I'm not calling anyone old, but some here ask "which one?" when you talk about what they were doing at the turn of the century).

    Frankly, I don't have high hopes for this thread going anywhere, my only hope is that it remains friendly enough, or that everyone involves has the intellectual curiosity, to remain on this forum when its done.

    Leave a comment:


  • BB
    replied
    Hi Geoff,

    No one here will claim to know everything. If anyone ever tells you that, you can safely assume immediately that they are lying.

    That said, of course you don't need to know everything before you use it. But, when you KNOWINGLY pass on explanations that are not supported this impacts the way your athletes interact with the world when they leave your place. In other words, it affects your outcomes. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but at some point they are going to be confronted with a situation in which what they learned from you will be brought to bear relevance once again. If they've got an inaccurate explanatory model to work from (such as mis-alignment causes pain for example), this will impact the way they interact with the world and themselves.

    Again, of course we can't know everything. But we can also ignore what we do know and when that become the case, the word to describe it is much uglier than ignorance.

    Cognitive dissonance is a very good thing. We should all hope to notice it occurring and use it appropriately. That means, when your belief system is no longer supported, it gets scrapped or revamped so that it is again supported, until it is not. Then the process re-starts. I know that it continues for me thanks mostly to this place.

    Oh, and Todd:
    Here is my general explanation. I'd like to hear one from the supporters before going specific as well.
    Last edited by BB; 07-08-2007, 07:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EricM
    replied
    Geoff, although I came into this thread late after being away all weekend, I'd be happy to try and help answer some of the 'why's,' but I'm going to need some help to do that. And believe me, I'm all for the experience too.

    Let's start with the following passage describing what you do.

    When having my clients actively (they do it, I don't) mobilize the following bones in their feet: navicular, cuboid, middle cunneiform, their gaits improve--become more efficient: faster, feet closer together. (They perform all these drills standing.) If they practice these drills on their own routinely, the gait stays that way. Likewise, when I have clients actively mobilize their lateral talo-calcaneal joints, their heel strikes usually become quieter. Again, if they practice these drills routinely on their own, their heel strikes stay quiet.
    Specifically how does the client mobilize these joints by themselves? What grade of mobilization are we talking about? How many times? Is there any reference given to whether these mobilizations are in physiological or accessory joint motions? Lots of references to drills, but without some description of the drill(s) themselves, there's not much anyone can comment on.

    What criteria is used to determine which joint needs to be mobilized? Are they all mobilized as a matter of routine?

    How do we know that a faster gait with the feet closer together is more efficient? How is efficiency of gait being measured?

    Leave a comment:


  • GeoffNeupert
    replied
    Originally posted by EricM View Post
    Geoff, sounds like you have a serious case of Cognitive Dissonance. Better get that checked out!
    That's pretty funny. Except I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that I don't know all the science about what I believe and what I experience (uh-oh--there's that "touchy-feely" word again...). I have no problem learning about what I don't know, either. Thanks for the "help."

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Newman
    replied
    Hi Geoff,

    Since the internet doesn't indicate "tone," I'll assume you're not being sarcastic..
    You're correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • EricM
    replied
    Geoff, sounds like you have a serious case of Cognitive Dissonance. Better get that checked out!

    Leave a comment:


  • GeoffNeupert
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Newman View Post
    Possible Harper's Index entry

    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.
    Jon,

    Since the internet doesn't indicate "tone," I'll assume you're not being sarcastic, so I'll venture a few observations.

    When having my clients actively (they do it, I don't) mobilize the following bones in their feet: navicular, cuboid, middle cunneiform, their gaits improve--become more efficient: faster, feet closer together. (They perform all these drills standing.) If they practice these drills on their own routinely, the gait stays that way. Likewise, when I have clients actively mobilize their lateral talo-calcaneal joints, their heel strikes usually become quieter. Again, if they practice these drills routinely on their own, their heel strikes stay quiet.

    Also, when clients actively mobilize their T-spines, their posture improves (although this also happens with the foot work).

    I cannot state definitively that their gaits increased by x speed or their posture improved by y inches. I have never measured the change. Is this close to what you're looking for?

    I guess after reading all of these posts with the many questions contained therein, some real, some sarcastic, I've realized that I've stopped asking "why?" in many cases especially with regard to the system I'm not supposed to name in this response. Perhaps it's intellectual laziness. Perhaps it's busy-ness. Whatever the case, my "experience" was good enough for me at that time to seek to know further. Perhaps it was circumstancial: I was training 60 sessions per week and trying to move a business forward--I was just tired and the answers at the time were acceptable to me.

    Mr. Dorko commented earlier on one of my statements:

    "Geoff says, "I won't be able to answer them on a "deep science" level in most cases, but my experience in the field more than makes up for my lack of knowledge, that is, if you accept that anecdotal evidence is the beginning of the scientific method." This comment contains just about everything that's wrong with "alternative" approaches. "Experience" can never make up for ignorance and anecdotal evidence is not the beginning of the scientific method."

    I disagree on his evaluation (of course I would). Experience doesn't make up for ignorance, true, but ignorance of what? Current scientific literature? If my "experience" tells me high-carb diets do exactly the opposite of what the "science" says they "should" do, do I disregard my experience in favor of the science? We know how that little nightmare turned out (can you say 70% of the US is overweight?). Anecdotal evidence is nothing more than observation and that is the beginning of the scientific method (Observation -> Question -> Hypothesis -> Prediction ->Experimentation...etc.)

    Experience is a form of knowledge. To discount that is arrogance in favor of your strengths. For example, you can be well versed about movement on an intellectual level, but if you have a pot-belly and a double chin, slumped shoulders, and a forward head carriage, I can guarantee you that you don't know a lot about movement on the experiential level.

    And as far as that comment summing up what's wrong with the "alternative" approaches: Alternative approaches exist because traditional ones fail. What's the number one criteria? Performance.

    So for me personally, I no longer need to know "why" everything is what it is and why everything happens in order to use something as long as I can measure in some way that it works, whether that measurement is subjective, as in, "according to the wall at the back of my studio, he looks taller after performing x," to objective, "Congratulations, you've lost 5% bodyfat in 5 weeks." For me, it's all about the performance. Can I make a change in performance: feel better, move better, hit the ball farther, etc...

    If that makes me lazy, so be it...I'll be lazy for now--I have other fish to fry.
    Last edited by GeoffNeupert; 07-08-2007, 06:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X