Mel Siff:
A few things always concern me about the whole "postural correction" or
"realignment" concept:
1. Structural or observed symmetry all too often is regarded as the optimal
and safest end state for all
humans. The body very typically is an asymmetric system which displays a
level of plasticity and adaptability that is not always as homeostatically
"perfect" as seems to be implied by many posture police.
2. Posture often is regarded as something that is invariant and should not
vary to any noticeable degree from some hypothetical ideal or universal
model, despite the fact that any given motor problem may have more than one
unique solution.
3. Assessment of posture is far too often based upon static measurements;
very rarely is the topic of "situational" or "contextual" posture raised, nor
is dynamic posture ever measured under a wide range of conditions. Just as
some people display rather unaesthetic speaking voices, they may sing
exquisitely. Similarly, someone may display unaesthetic static posture, but
exceptional grace while in motion.
4. Sometimes individual posture is regarded as pathological, yet it has
never been established exactly which is the optimal postural reference model
for all static and dynamic situations.
5. It is too frequently proclaimed that the human body left to its own
devices will simply perpetuate "imbalances" or "imperfections" -- only
special therapeutic interventions will ever restore the body to its
hypothetical ideal state. Yet, it is not uncommon for the body to
spontaneously rectify so-called imbalances.
6. The concept of long lasting static posture runs contrary to how the body
functions. Speeded up video studies have shown that our bodies are always
indulging in subtle or gross movements to ensure that one precise posture is
NOT held for prolonged periods, thereby ensuring that stresses are not
imposed upon the same physical structures in exactly the same way. Even in
sporting and other complex movement situations, the same external movement
pattern may be produced by different musculoskeletal and neuromuscular
strategies, so that the idea of an invariant, highly stable single posture is
misleading.
7. It can be very misleading to assess the validity of postural correction
on the basis of changes in perception of pain, because absence of pain does
not necessarily imply the absence of pathology and vice versa.
8. A given postural intervention may not be the direct effector of change;
it might simply serve as the "last straw" in a long sequence of automatic and
therapeutically mediated changes, especially since many processes in
biological systems appear to be nonlinear in nature.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
|