Re: Scherger reply to Casler post 36668

[Guest guest]

,

You are right on the money.

Damien Chiappini

SPF Training

Pittsburgh

Casler wrote:

> Casler writes:

>

> While this is an admirable goal, you completely neglected several of

> the systems that strongly participate in Torso and Spinal

> Stabilization. In doing so, you have made the material incomplete

> and less than meaningful.

>

> Scherger writes: C. With all due respect what are you

> talking about? What is Torso Spinal Stabilization?

>

> The man that swings the log does the work not the man that protests

> the swinging. I want to see some of your work.

>

> Where is it?

Casler writes:

Hi ,

The Torso Stabilization Mechanism is the sum of active and passive processes

and structures that cause or create a stable platform/conduit to create,

absorb, or transmit force to, from, and through, the Spine and Torso.

While I appreciate the amount of work you have put into your system, it " IS

NOT " a log you are swinging.

Your view and assessment of how the spine and its discs are loaded during

activity is narrow, isolated, and limited. In a multi-joint,

multi-structure model, performing analysis such as you have, is not

meaningful or accurate to the forces, and how they are transmitted and

distributed.

You neglect the complex activation and reaction of several elements of

active and passive stabilizers and focus on " straight " dual force examples.

While interesting, these do not occur in the real world as per your

examples.

Scherger wrote:

> Archimedes said it best when he first talked about theorem

> etiquette.

Casler writes:

Please....Next you'll claim Archimedes was in your " Think Tank " .

Scherger wrote:

As he said it is not the theory we want to hear (your

> torso spinal stabilization, TVA Suck in the gut, core stability roll

> on a ball, Tenesigrity or theoretical work by McGill, Jull,

> , Hodges, Chek, etc.,) but the proof we want to examine.

> If you have any proof of what you say to examine I want to see it.

Casler writes:

I have challenged you several times to explain what your " better CURVE " is,

and you have not.

I have asked how your isolated " lying " open kinetic chain " pelvic thrust "

type exercise can create this perfect curve, and you have not responded.

I have questioned the meaningless calculations of a couple force vectors at

a single moment in time, that do not recognize " anything " except two forces

involved, and you have not answered.

I also want to know why you don't recognize that the body is " not " a simple

math equation and two force physics example. Are you unaware that other

systems contribute significant forces, or simply wish to not recognize their

contribution?

Your tirade above relating to TvA sucking, Ball Rolling, and theory is of no

use, (and has no relation to me) since you ask nothing specific.

The TvA (and the abdominal complex) alone would require a complete course as

to its activation and utilization for spinal and torso stabilization, yet

you don't even recognize its contribution. Where are the calculations

including the contribution of forces from the abdominal complex?

Even better yet, I am most sure you don't have any idea how the TvA is best

activated, why, and when.

So, since you brought it up, it might be a good place to " display " what you

know about this element of spinal/torso stabilization.

What function(s) does the TvA serve in spinal and torso stabilization? Feel

free to express the inclusion of the other abdominal muscles if you feel

necessary and how and when they are useful.

How is it activated to its maximum potential? Should you suck it in? Push

it out? Can you push it out?

And please don't turn this around and ask me. I have posted volumes on this

subject in the archives, so my thoughts are already " of record " on this

forum.

You can either look them up, and copy them, or you can post your own views,

and we can discuss them. If you don't answer, we can assume that you simply

do not know how these systems function for this purpose.

After this discussion, we can do the same for the internal supporting

pressures IAP and ITP (IntraAbdominal and IntraThoracic Pressures)

Then we can discus the roles and forces of the Glottis, Lungs, Gluteals, Hip

Flexors, Lats, Traps, The RibCage, Obliques, Abdominus Rectus, Multifidus,

SacroSpinalis, Intercostals, the muscles of the Chest, the Diaphragm, and

several others, on Torso and Spinal Force Management.

This kind of discussion will yield relevant information on what structures,

elements and processes contribute to TSM.

After that we can also examine the actual anatomical and functional

structures of the vertebrae and discs, and how and why they are shaped the

way they are. We can discuss their evolution, and adaptation from quadruped

to bipedal loads.

If all you have is arguments about how physics and levers should be taught,

and engineering gibberish on isolated and simplified models, then you bring

nothing to the table.

Scherger wrote:

> In your post 36579 on Torso Stabilization Mechanism you stated

> you " have learned and innately understood the original forces,

> transitional forces and current forces that need to be recognized in

> order to see these structural and system developments and what lead

> to them and where they are going.

>

> Take your torso stabilization or any work by McGill, Chek, Hodges,

> Jull, and put a 100 lbs of the force you talk about being

> original, transitional and current and apply it to the head, the

> chest, the butt I do not care where.

>

> Please produce an engineer study showing the body producing torso

> stabilization. Show relative to the 100 lbs or original force

> impacting the body on the head, chest or butt which muscle is

> producing how much effort to be the stabilizer of the spine. Show

> the magnitude of force created by the force of the 100 lbs impacting

> the head, chest or butt and the force created by the muscle effort

> as it is impacting which tissues in the joint to what degree.

Casler writes:

I think what you are missing here, is that the engineering drawings and

calculations you write, are totally meaningless without recognition of the

complete system. The body is NOT an Erector Set, or " stick model " . It is a

complex, multi-element system that works with contributions from all those

systems.

So you won't see any engineering studies from me, or anyone who understands

the system. Those models went out hundreds of years ago.

Scherger wrote:

> Get it out of your innate mind and put it on paper where someone

> else can see it and examine rather then just you with your innate

> intelligence.

> Show something!

Casler writes:

Those who have read what I have written seem to understand most of it (if

they have the background or education) Just filling two books with

meandering equations and arguments against the presently accepted definition

of mechanical levers, " IS NOT " offering any useful information about Torso

Stabilization.

Scherger wrote:

> I have yet to see an engineered study by any of the mentioned

> authors or theories of the spinal programs that are flowing and in

> and out of their individual minds put on paper and ran demonstrating

> on paper what their mind is seeing so anyone else can see it. See

> the force at work on the body. The force the muscle is producing,

> how the force is stabilized at the joint.

Casler writes:

, the reason you don't and won't see this, is because it cannot be done

with any type of meaningful accuracy. " Your " utilization of such is not of

any use whatsoever.

While it is possible to perform basic leverage calculations on single joint,

if all forces, and calculations are known, it is not reasonable or accurate

on a multi-joint structure like the spine, without complete analysis of each

joint and muscle(s), as well as all the other force loaded, or producing

structures, and processes involved.

While these mathematical exercises, and mental gymnastics are intriguing,

they do not provide us with anything usable in the real world.

I feel a more meaningful approach is to study and understand how each system

" contributes " to loads and forces to the Torso/Spine, and how, why, and

when, they are called into play during specific actions and activities.

This then, leads us to effective training methodologies, that can be

incorporated into our conditioning programs to better advantage.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

Modify/cancel your subscription at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you

wish them to be published!