Dear Chris
I am sorry if my responses give you offence, it is not my intention. Could
you please explain how they are unhelpful.
The question Mel proposed is a vital one, with respect to physiotherapy
clinical decision making. The first stage in any knowledge acquisition is to
question the validity and reliability of the information. James Cyriax was a
brilliant man for his era, but much of the theories he proposed were
unsubstantiated with research. The first thing we must do is recognise this.
I am not proposing we through the baby out with the bath water, it is just
that if we can gain a fuller understanding of the processes it will enhance
and improve our practice. To blindly accept introspection as fact will hold
us back; which I know many of us don't.
Therefore we should question as much theory as we have the stamina to do,
allow clinical practice to provide the research questions and have those
skilled in research answer them with appropriate tools; the RCT debate.
At least if you don't like my input it should provoke a response and force
you to give your side; which is not a bad thing. Warm Regards Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Mclean, Chris <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03 December 1999 07:53
Subject: RE: CROSS FRICTION PARADOX?
>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]
>> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|