 |
 |
Dear Kevin, That does not mean you shouldn't challenge your self and others by asking why. Sometimes your comments are extremely unhelpful. > -----Original Message----- > From: kevin reese [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 02 December 1999 19:34 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: CROSS FRICTION PARADOX? > > Dear Mel > > Physio is rife with good techniques with faulty rationales. It is > therefore > not a profession for the pragmatist. > > Regards Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 02 December 1999 19:16 > Subject: CROSS FRICTION PARADOX? > > > >Here is a quick mini-paradox. > > > >Although deep transverse cross frictions certainly can work, the existing > >popular explanation for their effectiveness still seems rather curious. > >Presuming that this method breaks down existing adhesions or scarring by > >retraumatising them, is it not logical that they simply scar or adhere > again > >to heal the re-damage? Of course, then one repeats the friction and the > >microdamage, and so on, thereby somehow mysteriously facilitating tissue > >regrowth and not scar formation. > > > >Do we hypothesise that this process of cross frictioning then results in > >optimal scarring, scar resorption and contractile tissue regrowth, or > optimal > >repositioning of muscle fibres, myofibrils or connective tissue? Or is > it > >that cross friction simply releases some localised muscle spasm and that > it > >has no effect on some type of tissue repair? > > > >Either something like this or there must be some other explanation for > this > >form of soft tissue therapy. > > > >Any suggestions or relevant references? > > > >Dr Mel C Siff > >Denver, USA > >[log in to unmask] > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%