Barrett:
If I may interject, I think that what Graeme is attempting to say is that
this argument is coming from a point of scarcity. What I mean by that is
that the argument is coming from a vantage point of what is "not" versus
what could "be". There is a distinct difference in the way of thinking
which some on this list begin most arguments with.
Some might say this is being the "devil's advocate" but why not be the
devil's advocate from a point of what could be. Instead of recognizing the
problem of the theory offer some suggestions as to why it does get results
for some people.
Is that a viable option?
Patrick Zerr
www.apluspt.com
The easiest way to prepare for the National PT Exam!
www.summitpt.com
Summit Physical Therapy; Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Dorko" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Core Guru Cognitive Dissonance
> Graeme,
>
> I disagree with so much of your post that it's hard to know where to
begin.
>
> You say that when science disagrees with the unsupported claims of a fad
it
> is being "arrogant." This is classic postmodernist dogma and is
responsible
> for advances in health care such as crystal healing and Therapeutic Touch.
> Do you really think that standing still while charlatans prey upon the
> unsuspecting, ignorant and ill public is a good idea? Would you rather we
> all just be nice while medicine descends toward supernaturalism? When
> should the claims of another be publicly refuted?
>
> No one has said that the training proposed by the core stability people
> wouldn't strengthen muscles in some fashion. It's a matter of degree and
> toward what end. The evidence that this is a good idea for the treatment
of
> backache is the issue here and I notice you didn't mention that.
>
> You've mistaken disagreement in the scientific community (the only way it
> ever truly progresses) for cynical, self-serving negativity. These aren't
> the same thing.
>
> Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.
> <http://barrettdorko.com>
> See "What Went Wrong: Postmodern Thought and Physical Therapy Practice"
> here for more on this.
>
>
>
>
> At 03:16 PM 12/11/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >Being a discussion group I realise the importance about bouncing theories
> >off each other and challenging some of them, but are we maybe taking this
to
> >a little bit of an extreme?
> >
> >Call it what you want, "core stability "has been an "in" fad for a while
now
> >and many fitness regimes have made a lot of noise about it's importance
e.g.
> >pilates, yoga. Then science seems to get in the way and make a
controversial
> >maybe "arrogant" statement claiming "it is all "B.S" so stop wasting our
> >time"
> >
> >Hey, improving ones " core stability" is a training method that activates
> >and trains T.A amongst other things, which can only have a positive
effect
> >for those we are trying to help -THE PATIENTS!
> >
> >If you take someone who hasn't done one bit of exercise in their life and
> >you give them even the simplest form of ab. exercises, they can't fail
but
> >to increase strength and stability!
> >
> >On the strength of that how can you argue with it's effectiveness? If you
> >gave similar exercises to an elite group of athletes, sure it would
barely
> >train them at all, but if certain exercises help certain people, why
waste
> >time trying to argue against it?
> >
> >We are here to help people and be positive. Negativity gets us no where!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: - for physiotherapists in education and practice
> >[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> >Sent: 10 December 2001 23:25
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Core Guru Cognitive Dissonance
> >
> >
> >Now that more and more scientific evidence is emerging to show that
> >deliberate attempts to activate transversus abdominis, to "suck in the
abs"
> >or to use various related tricks to enhance "core stability", balance and
> >strength, it is interesting to note how some disciples are starting to
> >defend
> >the long-promoted beliefs of their gurus.
> >
> >In psychology, the action of defending or believing in something that you
> >know or sense to be uncorroborated or untrue is called "cognitive
> >dissonance". Increasing numbers of folk are beginning to hear or read
the
> >evidence of scientists such as Dr Stuart McGill that these ideas about
> >enhancing core performance and abdominal control are incorrect or
misleading
> >at best, so the gurus and their followers are now being called upon to
> >respond and answer for their educational misdemeanours.
> >
> >So far, what I have heard from these sources does not include any
> >acknowledgment of error or possible misinterpretation. Instead, I have
> >heard
> >nothing more than an unhealthy abundance of cognitive dissonance,
> >smoke-screening and evasions, which is not all unexpected, since whole
> >empires of fitness courses, lectures, products and advertising have been
> >built on these fragile foundations and the egos creating these misbeliefs
> >have been too vast to admit error.
> >
> >Thus, we hear remarks like the following:
> >
> >"When we advise sucking in the abs, we really mean tightening the abs,
> >bearing down and not really out or pulling in a little just to activate
the
> >TVA, but not enough to promote trunk flexion."
> >
> >"We mean that you must just suck in the abs a little at the beginning of
the
> >exercise, because correcting the initial posture will set up the
> >circumstances for correct activation of the trunk muscles later in the
> >movement, which may include a little bulging of the abs."
> >
> >"Most people do not reflexively activate their TVA in starting a lift, so
> >that this TVA activation method reprograms these people so that the TVA
> >becomes more automatic in reacting correctly in future lifts or later
stages
> >of the exercise."
> >
> >"When we advise activating TVA, it is because it automatically also
> >activates
> >the diaphragm, which really is just as important in stabilising the core.
> >We
> >just cure the TVA because many other muscles are involved and this cue
> >integrates activity of all the muscles need to stabilise the core."
> >
> >"What Dr McGill's research has shown is not really at odds with what we
> >teach; it is just another way of achieving the same ends. Science and
> >practice don't always have the same language or way of describing events.
> >In
> >fact, we are just saying the same thing in different ways. Both of us
are
> >right."
> >
> >As the King of Siam said in the "King and I" movie, "etcetera, etcetera,
> >etcetera.." ! Have some folk been attending courses by a latter day Dr
> >Spock (not the Star movie hero) of politically correct child fitness
gurus
> >upbringing, where they have learned that it can be very damaging to tell
a
> >child that it is wrong? Egos are to be preserved above all - if they are
> >not, we could be ruining the child forever and society will pay the
price!
> >
> >Maybe others would like to share their experiences regarding this issue
and
> >how the guru gang is coping with the rising tide of critical analysis and
> >disproof of their fitness and rehabilitation legends. Over to you!
> >
> >Dr Mel C Siff
> >Denver, USA
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
>
|