> Barret writes - > John, > > I never said that the chiropractors ever did anything with stabilization. > Would you care to point out where I did? John writes - Well, sorry to persist with this point but you said : "While I appreciate your effort to restate Sahrmann's theory it doesn't appear to me that it is anything different than as previously described; a rehashing of chiropractic dogma". So you can see my point: If Sahrmann's theory is one of stabilisation and you say that it is a "rehashing of chiropractic dogma" then surely you are saying that Sahrmann is saying nothing new - ergo chiropractors had already developed a theory (and practice) of dynamic stabilisation. My argument is that (contrary to your opinion), the theory of dynamic stabilisation is completely alien to the field of chiropractic and the fact that you feel that one is just a rehashing of the other reflects a misunderstanding of the theory Sahrmann relies on (hence my attempt to explain the theory more fully). I rather suspect that you have misinterpreted the article you refer to and see Sahrmann as referring to 'positional' faults that can be passively corrected rather than 'instability' dysfunction which are addressed actively through dynamic stability work. Barrett writes - To my knowledge their (chirpractor's) focus has always been on vertebral *position* and its supposed effect on nervous tissue. John writes - Well, that kind of proves my point. You are right, Chiropractic models rely on analysis of a vertebral position. The dynamic stability model DOES NOT. I suggest a reading of "Therapeutic Exercise for Spinal Stabilisation in Low Back Pain". (Richardson, Jull, Hodges and Hides, 2000). Here you will see that the dynamic stability model has been developed precisely because the 'positional' and manipulative models of manual therapists have failed to address the problems of low back pain. To associate to two theories, one as a rehashing of the other, is a complete misreading as they are enormously different in terms of the models (and methods) they use. Barrett writes - As I've said, Sahrmann has thrown in the pathologic, unstable nature of spondylolithesis into this mix and it doesn't belong here. John writes - Actually, spondylolisthesis is the example 'par excellence' of intervertebral instability. What more obvious example of a pathology can you think of which demonstrates intersegmental instability. Why doesn't it fit here? I suggest you read O'Sulllivan PB, Twomey L, Allison G 1997 "Evaluation of specific stabilising exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis" Spine 22: 2959-2967 This controlled trial of dynamic stability exercises on a classically 'unstable' pathology demonstrates both the effectiveness of the technique (and to my mind the contrasting ineffectiveness of chiropractic or any 'positional' model). Barrett writes - The "core researchers" have *not* been well-received by large portions of the research and clinical communities. The best resource for this is in the archives of the "Supertraining" list on Yahoo groups. John writes - With respect, the criticisms in these archives are COMPLETELY off the wall. Most contributors in these archives are totally unaware of even the basic principles behind stabilisation work. They seem to think that it has something to do with stopping people falling over! I'm sorry if I sound disparaging but when people offer criticisms of research you would have expected them to at least have read the research involved! I hope you don't feel that my response to your comments on Sahrmann's work is too vigorous Barrett as your postings are normally beyond reproach but I just feel your criticisms are misguided in this case and I feel obliged to put the case for an area of research which is often misunderstood and misrepresented.