Why do these two variables (length and strength) have to be mutually
exclusive? Surely we should be 'strengthening' and 'lengthening' at the
same time if at all possible
dave R
> -----Original Message-----
> From: luke harris [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 September 2000 17:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Re: cold spray
>
> ** As Philip Greenman said in one of his papers, the emphasis should
> be more on muscle length rather than muscle strength, and that if a
> muscle is both tight and weak, one should stretch the muscle first
> before strengthening it.
>
>
> this confers right back to rood's stages of motor control. we've been
> learning about these stages, and various techniques to help progress
> from one stage to the next, all semester. things makes sense!
>
> it makes sense to improve PROM before working on AROM. why strengthen
> the muscle in its limitted range, then lengthen it? you'd end up with
> a muscle of normal/desired length that would have poor activation
> throughout range, and you would have to work on strength again. (hope
> i'm making myself clear).
>
> i know that may be very straight forward stuff for everyone on this
> list... however, i can't help but get a little excited when the things
> we learn at uni start to click, and i get a chance to rationalise them
> in real situations.
>
> luke.
>
> this message was proudly brought to you by ...
> luke harris of benzene - http://benzene.cjb.net/
> prefer email sent to me at [log in to unmask]
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|