Zenker Theory

[Guest guest]

Zenker wrote:

Dear : You must be one of a kind. In almost 20 years in practice I have

never

once encountered an individual or athlete that didn't have some sort

of joint segmental dysfunction, postural maladaptation, altered

passive joint endplay, altered coordination on dynamic testing.

Casler:

, I think your fascination with these " dysfunctions " is the reason you

are able to " encounter " them. The perfect athlete probably does not exist,

so no doubt all of us have biomechanics and system dynamics that may not

provide optimal functioning. If you have never encountered perfect

function, how can you profess to know what it is?

The thing I continue to question you on, and have yet to receive an

acceptable (to me) answer is: " What makes you think you know the intricacies

of the millions of dynamic combinations in the body, to such an extent, that

you can " diagnose " these dysfunctions by merely " touching " someone " ?

I have to think, from reading your verbose meanderings, that this is all

imagined and has NO actual basis in fact.

You cannot and have not shown that any of this " Zenker Theory " has any

foundation in actual application. I visited your " golfing website " offering

several months ago and found that the exercises you recommended were " at

best " strange. Your use of " balls " and such, as diagnostic tools and

therapy devices, is not in any way a proven methodology.

If I don't understand something it is either because it doesn't " make sense "

or it doesn't work. So far I would say that much of what you have presented

fits in the former.

Zenker wrote:

The fact that you wouldn't have any muscle tightness after riding 200

miles is even more impressive.

Casler:

I did not say I rode 200 miles. My general rides were quick sprints and time

trials about 20-30 miles in length (approx 1 hour in duration)

And I did not say that I did not experience " any " tightness. I stated that

I had not experienced the phenomena of which you spoke, which was:

" If you go mountain biking or on a long road ride the quads will be

recruited over the glutes as well as the upper torso. There then can be a

relative strength imbalance. The quads will also get tighter. "

In my thousands of " bike " miles I never found any " change in adaptive

recruitment strategies " , as you put it. And I didn't find an specific or

" selective recruitment " of my quads " over " my glutes other than their normal

functional relationship.

I ask you what this term meant, and rather than answer, you chose to say I

am trying " not " to understand. If you want people to understand your

" theory " you will have to do a better job of explaining it because right now

it is only your saying that you " touch " and " flick " and " palpitate " for

these (to my understanding) Zenker created conditions that are normal

results of stress loadings on the body.

Zenker wrote:

You probably never have pain or suffer from overuse or DOMS.

Casler:

I am deep into a serious case of DOMS right now, but it is caused by a

change in my routine and not some imagined " imbalanced recruitment strategy " .

Zenker wrote:

I have to ask you what kind of testing and assessment do you do

with your clients because its apparent you are not familiar with such

procedures.

Casler:

Your preoccupation with these " personally " sensed tests and assessments are

the very thing I question. Your assessment that " I " am not familiar with

them is very true simply because I have yet to get any reasonable answer

regarding their value, or scientific accuracy in adding " anything " to an

athlete, or fitness trainee's program.

Yet when I ask you to simplify this " jargon " I get more jargon.

Zenker wrote:

If you do just range of motion without assessment of

quality of endplay then your judgement of you clients response will

always be very limited. If you don't do segmental joint play and

motion palpation, you'll never know if your clients joints are load

bearing optimally. I would hope you understand the importance of equal

distribution of forces at joints for proteoglycan metabolism is

healthy. Altered joint play caused by unequal distribution of forces

is considered a prime candidate for OA which sets off a whole viscous

cycle of problems.

Casler :

Nice illustration of my point. The above meandering is rather meaningless.

What formula or basis do you use to assess " optimal load bearing on joints " ?

Life is an " unequal distribution of forces " .

Zenker wrote:

At least I hope that you palpate (touch) certain muscle zones critical

for stabilization to make sure your clients are recruiting properly,

are certain critical areas firing at the right time or at all.

Casler :

And what makes you think you " know " these " critical firings " and " right

times " ? The intricacies of each and every rep of a set or even more

complicated, each movement of a sport, are so random and infinite that your

claiming to " know " when and how is questionable to say the least.

Zenker wrote:

Visually it may look like they are but are you sure. ie. on the bench

press do you palpate the axillary area medial to the lateral boarder

of the scapulae, to make sure this are is firing, or the deep anterior

muscles above the adams apple or the muscles between the lower ribs

and top of the iliums. Proper synchronization of these areas or

critical not only for stabilization but to improve power and speed.

(summation principle)

Casler:

You have got to be kidding me. Your sticking your fingers in your clients

" adams apple " during a bench press? and for what? To CHEK stabilization?

This type of " detail " to your theory adds a serious impediment to its

acceptance. Next you will be telling us to CHEK the tongue digitally. (I

really don't want to go there)

Zenker wrote:

You notice I didn't mention muscles specifically because muscle

doesn't work in isolation.

Casler:

What does that mean?

Zenker writes:

No, I don't think you know what I am talking about, primarily

because you don't want to know. Or perhaps you just playing dumb? Nor

does it appear you have any knowledge of functional testing, other

than muscles being tight or not. Your posts don't reflect it. You ask

questions I have addressed before with a number of abstracts that

should have answered the questions you continually re-ask.

Casler :

I find your assessment of my questioning typical for someone who " cannot "

explain their methodology, its origins and its value. I am no more " playing

dumb " than you are " playing smart " .

Your " functional testing " is questionable to say the least and that is what

I have been questioning.

Could you list the institute where you were taught these " testing " protocol?

Zenker wrote:

I don't like to engage in this sort of dialogue. I e-mailed you asking

you to clarify your last remarks and extended a warm invitation to get

together and it is apparent what and how you meant them. It's apparent

that you have it all figured out, anyway.

Casler :

, you have been posting voluminous amounts of very sophisticated

procedures and theory. On a list such as this, we ask searching questions about

things that we don't understand. One should be prepared for this when one

posts. This is how we learn.

I certainly cannot hide my skepticism regarding occasional content of your

posts. I feel if I take the time to question your material, you now have

additional opportunity to explain and support it as well as give it more

exposure.

If you cannot communicate your system in such a way as most will understand

it, then it is a communications failure. If your system is not supportable,

then it is a systems failure. Right now I think we have both.

As far as me having it " all figured out " , I would say that " IF " I had it all

figured out, then I wouldn't be asking you to explain what you mean. Surely, I

think that you have developed a " theory structure " that is " far too " deep to

be useful to anyone in real world application. But since you continue to

post, I continue to question, in the hope that we will move toward greater

clarity.

And the point is, you did not answer any of the questions! Your directions

to refer back to some lengthy pre-rambling IS NOT an answer.

You come up with terms and phrases that do not make sense. For example in a

recent post to Gabe Rinaldi you said:

" What you will find are areas, bands or zones of reciprocal inhibition that

correspond geometrically to the tight lumpy areas. "

There are no such things as " bands or zones of reciprocal inhibition " .

Reciprocal inhibition, has to do with the motor inhibition reflex

relationship of an agonist antagonist group. It is not an area, band or

zone, much less a " lumpy area " . " Correspond geometrically " ???

I would challenge you to find anyone regularly contributing to this list,

who really understands what the above means and agrees with it.

In your last post you talked about " recruitment imbalances " but in no way

did you substantiate that they even exist, except that you said so. Sorry,

, that is not sufficient and I will call you on it every time I see it.

(if I have the energy)

And please don't take my questions to mean I don't think you should have

" personal theories " . I certainly appreciate the " kindling " of individual

thinking and read most of your postings for this very purpose.

I hope my questions do not keep you from posting as often, since I feel that

eventually (through the process of osmosis) we will grow closer in our

mutual understanding. But when you do post, be prepared for me to question

your position, terminology and assertions. Isn't that why you post? Aren't

you sharing these ideas and experiences to the list for comment, question

and feedback, or are you teaching us something that we should just accept as

truth?

That is not going to happen here. If I can't fly it, I don't buy it. Sell me

more!

It is quite evident that you have been well educated, have much experience,

and study hard in your field. The orderly structure that you have created

is intriguing and interesting, but I do not GROK it in fullness. (

Heinlein)

Regards,

A. Casler

BIO-FORCE, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest guest]

I agree that 's tendency to use words that require a (very good) dictionary

is maddening (as is his failure to re-read his posts to get all his spellings

right.)

But I think a lot of people have their dander up a tiny bit more than necessary.

Yeah, 's manner of expressing himself is irritating. ( . . . take a

friendly hint - find more common words to explain yourself - if you genuinely

want to be understood).

But the conversation is fascinating, and I hope that civility will continue.

I'm betting that is NOT - I'd be sorry to lose his input.

By the way, as far as I can tell, never claimed a 20-year history of

profound success with his clients. I think he was claiming that everyone he's

seen (in a claimed 20 years of practice) has exhibited some form of muscle

imbalance, altered passive joint endplay (boy, that one's a mouthful - what on

earth does it mean?), etc. . . . various forms of imperfection. This is hardly

a wild assertion -. virtually everyone has *something* wrong with them.

Mel's point (which seems valid to me) was that these technical imperfections we

all exhibit may have absolutely no consequence for health, happiness, and human

performance.

I also agree with Kurland that the " proof will be in the pudding " . . . if

can consistently treat his clients in ways that satisfy them subjectively,

he'll be a financial success. If he can also consistently raise their

performance on objective measures, then he should be considered a success by

many on this list, and his ideas should be investigated (no matter how badly

expressed).

Wood

Lebanon, NJ