On 26/8/99, Kevin Reese<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
<<Dear Mel As always well said. The issue of movement and function is
incredibly
complex, but could the problem be a labelling mistake. That is to say, the
tests and findings have some functional merit in the rehabing of
individuals, but the rationale of isolation is flawed. The test may identify
a failing pattern of movement, but to blame one structure for this may be
wrong. Your views please.>>
***I fully agree. During university studies, students often are reminded of
appreciating patterns of movement, the fundamental role of patterns in PNF
rehab, the principle that "the body knows only of movements and not muscles",
the underlying neural determinants of all movement and synergism among
muscles, yet some years later and a few trendy new rehab courses later, these
early basics seem to be forgotten.
Indeed, it can be most inappropriate and misleading to attribute some
neuromotor or neuromuscular problem to some single muscle or other soft
tissue structure. Often, a great deal more circumspection needs to be
exercised when applying 'muscle tests' too literally and too
isolationistically. This overemphasis on isolation testing in some ways
seems to constitute a type of "muscle apartheid".
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|