Re: Core Stability and ander

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff writes

<< Where is there research which proves that the majority of us

stiffen the neck and that this causes significant inefficiency of

movement - at least more than any other type of stiffening or

spurious muscle tension anywhere else in the body? >>

and

<< " what scientific evidence is there which supports 's

personal experiences and anecdotes? " We have all been very thorough

in demanding that sort of evidence for other 'alternative' therapies,

so we have to subject to the same scrutiny.>>

*** I would like to stress before I respond that The

Technique is not an `alternative' therapy. Firstly, though radical,

nothing in 's work contradicts medical science, and secondly

it is an educational technique and not a therapy. Of course this does

not avoid the issue of scientific scrutiny. always stated

his position and said he would be quite happy to admit he was wrong

if someone could prove otherwise. Despite the efforts of many this

did not happen in his lifetime.

My view is that recent advancements in medical science have endorsed

the parts of his `philosophy' that could not be verified fifty years

ago. More of this later.

The level of knowledge in connection to the control of posture has

always limited scientific investigation into the Technique.

These systems are still not fully understood and therefore the

changes brought about by learning the Technique cannot, as

yet, be said to have been analysed comprehensively.

However, research conducted at Tufts Institute for Experimental

Psychology by et al (1970) used electromyography and force

platforms to measure the act of getting up from a chair. Twenty

subjects were measured before and after a course of

lessons.

The results revealed a marked decrease of muscle activity during the

act following tuition. When the habitual postural `set' of

getting ready to perform the act was inhibited, an average of 25

pounds less force was used to complete the act. One of the obvious

actions prevented when applying was a decrease in neck and

shoulder muscle activity.

Radiographs taken before and after showed an increase in the

thickness of the cervical discs and a forward movement of the centre

of gravity of the head.

Ongoing research at the Biomedical Engineering Group, University of

Surrey (UK) is looking at the systems influenced by The

Technique such as the postural reflexes, their interaction with the

mechanics of the body and consciousness. Using a combination of force

platforms, electromyography and three-dimensional movement analysis,

muscle activity was measured during movement. From the work completed

to date the study Dr s concludes: -

" The Technique has as its first action a reorientation of

attention to recognise inappropriate postural preparations and then

to inhibit them. By then selecting and activating a more appropriate

pattern of postural preparations, it appears to progressively release

the body from habitual attitudes, perhaps by facilitating righting

reflexes. This in turn starts the process of bringing the body into a

natural upright posture characterised by greater height, greater

shoulder and chest width, and better balance. Also noted are faster

and less effortful movement patterns, improved responses to stress,

greater respiratory, circulatory and digestive efficiency, and

improvements in performance. It appears to improve proprioceptive

acuity thus aiding the learning of skills "

<< Anyway, can you imagine if we did not stiffen the neck during

activity, so that we tried to take part in any physically activities

with a 'floppy head'? >>

*** Yes, the idea of performing any physical activity with a `floppy

head' is ridiculous and likely to cause severe discomfort. I should

have used `inappropriate activity' in place of `stiffen'. If one of

the functions of the nervous system is to reduce stress on the system

(Gottleib), then we do not need to add more to the system by `getting

set' to perform an act. suggested that we may interfere

with the inputs to the balance organs and neck reflexes if we apply

inappropriate effort in preparation to move and effectively `fix' the

skull on the spine.

<< How does one determine what is excessive involvement for any

muscle once it is in action? What are the norms for 'normal'

activation for any muscle group in the body in every different type

of action that we undertake in life?

*** As I believe you have said before on this group – we do not know

and are possibly never likely to know what the `proper' involvement

for any muscle is in any given action. never claimed to

know what this was either. He argued against any method of

consciously trying to control individual muscles or groups of muscles

in order to get it right.

His approach was to tackle the problem of corrupt habitual patterns

of movement that he argued prevented appropriate employment of

muscle. The presence of these patterns effectively allowed the

attitudinal reflexes to negate the righting reflexes. The

misunderstanding of his works occurs because he uses the

term `conscious control', not to control our organism – but rather to

consciously prevent habitual misuse of it.

, from the above study, used the following to describe the

technique as :-

" a method for improving motor performance by integrating the

voluntary and reflex components of a movement in such a way that the

voluntary does not interfere with the reflex and the reflex

facilitates the voluntary. "

proposed that corrupt movement patterns develop due to a

gradual decline in the reliability of our sensory mechanisms. In

California research into the causes of Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI)

(Byl & Merzenich 1999) has made some interesting discoveries that may

prove 's theory of how misuse develops through use of faulty

sensory mechanisms. Byl, a Physical Therapist, and

Merzenich, a neuroscientist, measured changes to the `body map' in

the sensory cortex of RSI sufferers. Repetition of complex patterns

can `blur' the body map causing neurons to respond to unrelated

signals. Repetition of poor movement develops faulty patterns that in

turn corrupts the body map leading to further degradation of

movement.

The researchers have recognised that RSI is not a problem with the

limb but a problem with inappropriate learning. The results may prove

we can `misuse' our organism and not be aware of it until we suffer

pain. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) recorded a

corruption of the sensory mechanisms and monitored the outcome of

faulty tactile input on movement.

<< If one reads through 's books his method is based largely

upon his personal experience with himself, which he later applied to

others, thereby setting up a system which is especially amenable to

corruption of interpretation by individual perception and healer-

healee interaction. >>

***Firstly never claimed to be a healer as he did not aim

to `cure' specific conditions. His technique is a method of re-

education and brings the pupil's attention to attitudes likely to

affect natural functioning.

's books are not easy read without the subjective experience

of lessons. This is always going to lead to misinterpretation. This

has been a big problem for and for science in general. Yes,

's observations were initially based on personal experience.

But when you attempt to apply a solution to a condition you know is

your own making, then personal experience is all we have to go by.

However, over the next sixty-five years he worked with thousands and

found similar habits of misuse in the majority. We all subjectively

interpret even objective data. Herrick writes in his book `The

Evolution of Human Nature' that

" The extraspective and the introspective methods of observation have

equal scientific validity and both methods are subject to the hazards

of erroneous interpretation. "

Due to the introspective and subjective nature of observing ourselves

it is practically impossible to judge 's work without

experience first hand.

<< While I respect and value some of his contributions based upon

self-exploration (and I have used them in certain situations), his

methods certainly are very lacking in scientific validation. >>

I do not agree that his method is lacking in scientific validation.

As mentioned earlier because there is much we do not know this can be

said of most `accepted' disciplines. I believe as much as 60% of the

procedures used by the medical profession in the UK have NO

scientific validation.

Prof Dewey, author of a number of works on scientific method and

thinking, staked his reputation on stating:-

`Mr. 's teaching is scientific in the strictest sense of the

word .….his method satisfies the most exacting demands of scientific

method'.

Biologist Coghill after lessons with wrote:-

" Mr. 's method lays hold of the individual as a whole, as a

self-vitalising agent. He reconditions and re-educates the reflex

mechanisms and brings their habits into normal relation with the

functioning of the organism as a whole. I regard his method as

thoroughly scientific and educationally sound. "

successfully sued for libel in the Supreme Court of South

Africa after being labelled `a quack' by Dr Ernst Jokl, a physical

education officer for the South African Government. He wrote a paper

ridiculing in response to a move to include in

the school curriculum. Unfortunately due to 's manner he had

made many enemies in the established scientific community (just think

of the cheek of an Australian, with convicts as ancestors, telling

the all important scientists that they have got it wrong). There was

therefore no shortage of scientists ready to testify against his

technique although it is notable that none of these had ever had

lessons (hardly the grounds for an unbiased scientific critique of

his work!)

The big guns, amongst them the eminent neurologist, Sir

Sherrington gave evidence in favour of . Sherrington had

written in his one of his books that:-

" Mr has done a service to the subject by insistently

treating each act as involving the whole integrated individual, the

whole psycho-physical man. To take a step is an affair not of this or

that limb solely but of the total neuromuscular activity of the

movement – not least the head and neck. "

Prof Dart, professor of anatomy at Witerwatersrand

University, and also a pupil, reviewed much of the studies into

( included) and concluded:-

" The electronic facilities (of electromyography and

electroencephalography have confirmed 's insights and

authenticated the Technique he discovered in the 1890s of teaching

both average and skilled adult individuals to become aware of their

wrong body use, how to eliminate handicaps and thus achieve better

(i.e. increasingly skilled) use of themselves, both physically and

mentally. "

One of the most prominent scientists to support is the

ethnologist Professor Nikolaas Tinbergen who shared the Nobel Prize

for Medicine and Physiology in 1973. In his acceptance speech he

praised the work of and stressed the importance for medical

science to be more open-minded to work done outside the usual spheres

of their field. Of he said: -

" This story of perceptiveness, of intelligence, and of persistence

shown by a man without medical training, is one of the true epics of

medical research and practice. "

I have listed a number of other studies in previous posts that I

won't repeat here. Many prominent thinkers and scientists have

endorsed 's theory and methods. In doing so they have risked

their reputations and faced ridicule from their peers. All of these

supporters had lessons and experienced first hand 's theory

put into practice. The defendants in the libel case could not find

one person (scientist or lay person) who had had lessons to argue

their case!

<< As I commented in my earlier letter that research using local

anaesthetics injected into the neck muscles hardly constitutes

acceptable, definitive validation of Technique in general.

Over to you! >>

***Just to clarify, I used Garlick's study with local aneasthetics

injected into the neck not to justify The Technique in

general, but to stress the importance of the neck muscles and danger

of neglecting them in favour of the `core' muscles.

I do not doubt that there will be more debate on this subject, after

all it is the purpose of this forum. I would however urge anyone who

wishes to join in to try a number of lessons first. I have been

having lessons for over 8 years now and recognise I still have much

to learn about myself and aspects of my behaviour of which I was

previously completely ignorant.

Roy Palmer

Bedford

UK

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff writes:-

<<Far too many postural education methods seem to be based upon

assumptions of strict homeostasis, exact conditions of equilibrium,

fairly rigid balances between muscle groups, concepts of only

one 'neutral' position, the more or less constancy of muscle control

in a given movement, the limited linear (non rotatory and uniplanar)

action of muscles, a preoccupation with certain muscles being prime

movers, and a large degree of uniformity among all individuals.>>

*** Before I offer my reply I would like to say it is a pleasure to

have a respected scientist such as Dr Siff to take the time to read

and respond to my thoughts on . Too often, I and the

world are just ignored.

I stress the following is based on my understanding of 's

work. I am a relatively junior teacher, so if my arguments do not

stand up to scrutiny, do not dismiss due to me. I would be

doing the members of this group and a disservice.

The common misconception about The Technique is that it is

a posture education system giving advice on correct positions etc. It

is NOT a method of postural education. To focus on posture is the

wrong approach since no one can possibly know what a correct posture

is for any given movement/ position. In fact I prefer not to use the

word posture in my teaching because this does tend to

emphasis `strict homeostasis' and `rigid balance between muscle

groups' etc.

This misconception arises because whenever it does get a mention in

the press or other articles, it appears to be the easiest thing to

describe it as. Yes it does change `posture' but this is a side

effect and not as a direct result of trying to improve it.

never spoke of correct posture, position or of correct employment of

muscle: only of correct attitude – I'll return to this later.

Dr Siff:-

<< Once again, I am most curious to know what " inappropriate postural

preparations " are, since these preparations differ from task to task,

individual to individual and time to time. More and more research is

emerging which shows that the same motor task may be executed via the

involvement of different muscle contributions, so that there is no

such thing as THE 'correct' or universally appropriate muscular

strategy to implement. >>

*** said the same thing. He did not teach correct muscle

strategy. He aimed to address a habit that he believed led to instant

(knee-jerk) reactions to stimuli and hence deprived the individual of

the chance to choose their response (use reason). Losing our temper

is a good example – it is often not the most appropriate reaction but

it happens all the same (look before you leap). Let me try to

explain this part of his work. discovered what he believed

to be a near universal habit of what he call end-gaining, that is the

habit of neglecting the manner in which we complete a task in

preference to just getting it done. He did speculate this could be

due to the rapid changes bought about by the human race to our

environment (ie mechanisation and urbanisation) but with little

changes to humans to match it. Someone coined the phrase `stone-age

man in a space age world'.

He argued that we had struggled to adapt to the new demands placed on

the sensory-motor systems. The amount of `outward' attention required

to survive in the modern world distracts us from what is happening

internally. To overcome this he tried to focus awareness on the means-

whereby we go about an action.

I will use the example of weight lifting to try and explain this

(although this can apply to all sports). Before a lifter even

approaches the bar they will be making preparations. Each stage is a

discrete moment in the act of lifting the weight. The squat, placing

the hands on the bar etc. The lifter lives each moment to the full,

placing the appropriate attention to each step. If any one of these

preparatory acts are not right then the lift is abandoned. The lifter

is in the `here and now' or `The Zone'. This is the means-whereby the

lifter achieves the action

Now when the same person is in the changing rooms and reaches to lift

their bag, do they apply the same attention to the act? I think not!

You may argue that it is not required for such a small weight. This

is not the point, the person has `end-gained', performing an action

whilst probably thinking of something completely different. They may

have readied the body to lift whilst moving towards it before even

making contact with the bag handle. These are not actions that a good

lifter would perform at the bar. Our lifter is probably out of the

door and reaching for the car keys whilst still in `automatic pilot'.

theorised that if we are end-gaining this will change the

manner in which we execute a move. Now will I speculate here that

maybe if we are two or three steps ahead of ourselves in the usual

daily activities, could this not overlay `postural preparations'

or `anticipatory postural adjustments'? If I am thinking about

lifting my bag whilst I am moving toward it could the thought of

lifting be enough to set up preparations too early and therefore

interfere with my walking? I don't know, but I would welcome your

views. I cannot speak for the bar bandits out there, but if I start

thinking of the next steep hill during my run I find I can be getting

ready to tackle it before I have yet to reach it.

This is what I am trying to describe as `inappropriate postural

preparations'. Yes, `these preparations' should `differ from task to

task, individual to individual and time to time', but in the here and

now for the present task in hand.

Dr Siff:-

<<Moreover, when was carrying out his interesting and

useful intuitive work, so was Pavlov doing much the same in

understanding human action in terms of mental and physiological

processes. He showed that reflexes are by no means immutable and as

deterministic as and his medical supporters in the West

appear to have felt. His work on the conditioned reflex is now widely

known and subsequent work by Skinner et al showed that the

conditioning may be operant or respondent, in other words the

reflexes may be changed by events which follow a stimulus or those

which precede a stimulus. I consider it appropriate to add that

reflexes may also be changed by stimuli which occur concurrently with

any motor or cognitive action. >>

*** did not suggest that reflexes were immutable (neither

did Sherrington, if my understanding of his work is correct). I will

quote from a book comparing and Coghill's discovery

(partial and total pattern reflex responses) by Walter Carrington:-

" .. he() discovered a principle of control of behaviour

which differed from anything moralists, scientists or educators had

previously surmised. Its basis lay in no moralistic striving after

preceptive ideals, nor in any theory of a mechanical or `reflex'

causation: it lay in the discovery that behaviour is most effectively

controlled by the development of the conscious powers of reason and

intelligence which are able, through the normal processes of nervous

physiology, to direct and control the use and functioning of organism

as a whole. "

The corner stone of 's method is based on inhibition (not to

be confused with Freud's definition ie suppression). He expressed the

importance of using `conscious control' not to control bodily

functions, but to prevent the condition in which instant reactions

occur. I think Dewey says it best when in `Experience and Education'

he writes :-

" The crucial educational problem is that of procuring the

postponement of immediate action upon desire until observation and

judgement have intervened. "

Dr Siff:-

<< I am not even going to add spurious comments about " with all due

respect " to the great scientists of old whom you quoted, because that

would be hypocritical of me. Professors Dart, Sherrington, Dewey and

Tinbergen unfortunately did not have access to more recent research

which has revealed motor action to be a lot more stochastic,

indeterminate, 'fuzzy', 'chaotic', nonlinear and opportunistic than

their work suggested at the time. Most of their comments were based

upon their highly subjective experiences as pupils, not on

scientific or comparative clinical research which examined

in the context of many other educational, therapeutic, re-educational

disciplines. After all, scientists are also human and their

proclamations on any subject also have to be scrutinised in terms of

their own emotional natures.

***The problem is 's work does not lend itself to the all-

important sound bite. In fact it does not always translate to the

written word at all. (I think I maybe demonstrating this only too

well here). wrote four books and still misunderstandings

arise because, as you say Dr Siff, it is based on a subjective and

personal experience. But as we are talking about the function of our

own organism we only have the data available from our sensory

mechanisms to experience it with!

Can we be truly objective about anything? We may live on the same

planet but it is a planet that is uniquely constructed inside our own

heads. My understanding of the world is therefore different and so

will my interpretation of facts laid before me. It is the purpose of

science to overcome this problem. But as the scientists cannot agree

(and there maybe egos at play here) then it is a problem that remains

unsolved.

Try to explain music to someone who has never heard a note. Where do

you start?

I suspect that all scientists are human (well most), so as mentioned

earlier, subjective views on objective data is present in all

scientific work. Hence the disagreement in many subjects. However

does a scientist not have superior powers of reasoning and

observation or the ability to remain detached and unbiased? Of course

there are no doubt scientists out there who have been taken in by

some untruth before. If had won one or two over to his

theory then yes it could be argued he had hoodwinked them. Maybe if

he had ten to fifteen then this could still be true. But I can think

of at least forty eminent people from the fields of science,

education and philosophy who supported his work during his lifetime.

could not be accused of charming these people because his

manner was often abrupt and obtuse. A number of supporters of his

work actually disliked the man.

Yes, did gain supporters following lessons. But this was

the only way he could demonstrate his principle – cause and effect.

As for messrs Dart and co not having access to current knowledge on

motor behaviour etc, this did not matter. 's work was not

reliant on contemporary knowledge. His approach and ideas were

considered radical (and even crackpot) by many. They came to their

conclusions based on the limited knowledge of their day. Dewey, Dart

and Coghill all attributed changes in their ideas directly to their

experience of 's work. Someone has to put their neck out and

risk ridicule to force the pace of science. It was not that long ago

when scientists were out to the sword for questioning the status quo!

Dr Siff:

<<Once upon a time, when I was learning , I also felt

extremely enthusiastic about its merits, but later I learned that

there were many other methods of body conditioning and motor

education that are equally or more effective. Believe it or not,

heavy Olympic weightlifting and martial arts offered me far more in

terms of overall " functional " strength, flexibility, speed, power and

relaxation than any practice. Now, this is not to imply

that is useless, unscientific or inferior, but that it is

simply one of many methods and, according to scientific and practical

evidence from other disciplines, it offers nothing more than most of

these other disciplines. People follow and appreciate any method

which they actively choose and follow, rather than because of any

scientific evidence for that method of training. is exactly

the same - people use and love it because they love it and chose it

because somehow it seemed to suit their personalities and prejudices.

I would certainly support its use in a collection of different

strategies to be taught to children and adults, because it does have

definite merits which do not contradict solid science, but I would

never extoll its merits above many other movement disciplines.

***May I be a little presumptuous here and suggest that your

lessons could have allowed you to benefit more from later

methods! Seriously, this is my point. Ideally The Technique

is a pre-technique. I believe it should come first – before any other

strategies for self improvement as it can help to overcome the end-

gaining habit as mentioned earlier and stand the pupil in a good

position to benefit from all learning experiences or methods of

education. It is not meant to be a `complete' system for fitness etc.

It is a form of psycho-physical re-education that aims to empower the

individual with the skills to observe where they may be doing more

harm than good.

Dr Siff:-

<<Now for an interesting comment by Dr s: " This in turn

starts the process of bringing the body into a natural upright

posture characterised by greater height, greater shoulder and chest

width, and better balance " . This remark runs exactly counter to what

scientists (Olshansky et al, p51-55) in this month's " Scientific

American " (March 2001) wrote about how the body should be modified to

function more efficiently and safely. They state that we should have

a forward tilting upper torso which " would relieve pressure on

vertebrae, thereby lessening the risk of ruptured or slipped discs,

which contribute, along with weakened abdominal muscles, to lower-

back pain. " They add that we should possess a curved neck with

enlarged vertebrae that " would counterbalance the tilted torso and

enable the head to stay up and face forward. " Standing tall is not

encouraged either, since this raises the centre of gravity of the

body and adds greater stress to the body. In other words, not all

scientists look at human posture and its control in the same way, as

is often the case. >>

***I think the word upright has been misinterpreted here. In

work we do not encourage an upright position to be achieved

by `doing' something, ie the usual response to stand up straight is

to stiffen up and actually shorten the spine. A `natural upright'

position is possible only when the support reflexes, muscle,

ligaments etc are allowed to respond unimpeded to gravity. How do we

impede this function? By allowing the wrong attitude to elicit

attitudinal reflex activity leading to undue employment of muscle not

required for the simple `balancing act of standing'.

Now to (Olshansky et al), do you not think it is a little bold to

make recommendations about' how the body should be modified to

function more efficiently and safely'? Sounds a little like playing

God to me. Now permit me to make a few comments here.

If was right, and the human race had indeed lost the art of

natural movement then Olshansky's observations have been made using

subjects that do not have a `natural upright posture'. If subjects

used in scientific research show the symptoms of this `misuse' then

all conclusions are based on corrupted raw data. In the land of the

blind etc…

If was wrong in his assumption that we can `misuse' our

organism and the human race does not have a universal condition

affecting our posture – then why hasn't evolution bought about these

changes already? I do not think we are in the state of change toward

this posture as it sounds more like the posture of a gorilla from

which we have come. I think evolution got it pretty much right and we

have `interfered' with the mechanisms that allow a natural upright

stance, thus causing the problems that Olshansky has observed. Just a

thought.

There is more I would like to comment on with regard to your

comments. I will take the time to emphasis where differs

from `other movement disciplines', but it is now approaching 2 am and

it is my turn to do the early morning fed for the baby, at approx 6

am if I am lucky.

Roy Palmer

Bedford

UK