Mel Siff Blog

The following letter was sent to one of the professional physical therapy
groups. Since it focused on the rather trendy cuurent fad of “core
stabilisation”, I thought that this discussion would also be of value here.
Far too many self-proclaimed authorities on back pain, trunk stabilisation
and core stabilisation are proliferating some rather dubious beliefs about
these topics and it about time that some far more cautious science were
applied to them.

Here is the original letter:

<< I’ve just been awarded a research bursary and am planning to investigate
the possible link between hamstring strength and core trunk stability. I’m
planning to measure concentric/eccentric hams strength intially, send
subjects off to do hams strength work, transversus abdominus strength work
and placebo exercises. I’ve been able to get lots of literature re hams
strength, transversus abdominus (mainly Hodges, Jull and Richardson) and hams
injury prevention. What I haven’t been able to get is much information on
hamstring/muscular trunk control interaction. Anybody out there able to point
me in the right direction? >>

Here is my response:

***Just a small point about which I have written before – how does one assess Read more…

.

You may recall a post on the value of belts in lifting which requested that I
review a series of articles which Paul Chek, a regular speaker on the fitness
circuit, recently wrote on the subject in Testosterone emag (see the archives
of the Supertraining eGroup). Relying on some rather dubious biomechanics
and clinical anecdotes, he deduced that all belt usage is detrimental to
lifting. Well, he posted some rather unhappy reactions to my review on
another weights user group. In one of these letters, he stated:

<<In summary, it is not a case of believing in the belly button “going in, or
going out”, it is a case of the order of events. If the body functions
correctly, segmental stabilization via the inner unit will prepare the system
for force generation. This is why I often say in my lectures, “in order for
the musculoskeletal system to stay healthy, stabilization must always precede
force generation”. >>

My response may be of interest to some of you:

*** “It is totally incorrect to state that stabilisation precedes
mobilisation. Neither is this taught or applied clinically in physical Read more…

.

Dr Mel Siff and a Supertraining Yahoogroup member going back and forth

<If you hit bounce off the box correctly you will not experience any problems
with the lower back. The bounce needs to be make on the hamstrings and not
directly with your butt. If you perform it correctly you will the hamstrings
and to some extent the gluts will absorb the impact.

If you perform it incorrectly, you will experience some pressure in the
spine. Sitting back on the box places a lot of pressure on the lower back.
If you perform the bounce correctly, this is no more loading on the
spine…maybe even less that sitting back on the box. >

*** It certainly is useful advice to make most of the contact with the back Read more…

For newcomers, these P&Ps are Propositions, not facts or dogmatic
proclamations. They are intended to stimulate interaction among users
working in different fields, to re-examine traditional concepts, foster
distance education, question our beliefs and suggest new lines of research
or approaches to training. We look forward to responses from anyone who has
views or relevant information on the topics.

PUZZLE & PARADOX 72

The effects of joint manipulation or mobilisation may not be as clearly
related to traditional explanations of their underlying mechanisms as
suggested by various therapists.

Most sports scientists, physiotherapists and athletes are very aware of the
various classes of mechanical ‘realignment’ of joints (including
manipulation and mobilisation) that are applied by physical therapists or
chiropractors. These twists, thrust, pulls or pushes of the spinal column,
in particular, are often accompanied by an audible ‘click’ or ‘pop’.

The professional therapists who apply this form of treatment attribute any Read more…

Here is another “Puzzle & Paradox” for rumination:

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

For newcomers to this forum, these P&Ps are Propositions, not facts or
dogmatic proclamations. They are intended to stimulate interaction among
users working in different fields, to re-examine traditional concepts, foster
distance education, question our beliefs and suggest new lines of research or
approaches to training. We look forward to responses from anyone who has
views or relevant information on the topics.

PUZZLE & PARADOX 126: SUBLUXATION PARADOX

We constantly hear from colleagues and some therapists that someone’s spine
or neck is “out of alignment” or that the bones in some or other part of the Read more…