Once again I am thinking of a statement said by Dr. Stuart McGill. He gave the anaogy that the spine is like a clothes hanger and will has a breaking point when bent too many times. However there are a decent number of people who never have to see a Dr. for their back because they don't have back problems. My own father for example is 76 years old and I asked him if he ever had back problems. His answer was "No". He worked in manual labor for the majority of his life and before that was a 3 sport athlete. We always focus on the 80-90 % who have back pain but why don't we ask the question, "Why do the 10-20% NOT have back pain?"
The second question I would like to ask is, "Why that particular vertebrae?" Why not another one? If we can find the answer to "Why this one?" I think we may be able to fix more than just the symptoms.
For a great perspective on this go to the Gray Institute's website and read this months newsletter on knees.
Showing posts with label spine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spine. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
To brace or not to brace...the back/spine?
Here's where I get I little fuzzy on the idea of bracing.
Bracing is essentially a co-contracting of the "core" musculature correct? If that is true, in movement, especially of the spine, their must be an agonist/antogonist relationship between the contractors (shortening) and noncontractors (lengthening) muscles. In terms of athletics the spine moves. In the industrial setting where I work, we see the interspinalis muscles become (in my humble opinion) de-conditioned especially in transverse movement. As a result, we still deal with back pain even though their "core" muscles are strong as can be. I also don't know that I buy the idea that our spines only have so many
"flexes" in them before they break. The analogy used was that of a wire bending which will eventually break. Unlike a wire, the body has the potential to actually become better with use. So for me the search continues to find that balance between bracing (protecting the back) and moving (using the back) to perform functional activities in a wide variety of settings.
Bracing is essentially a co-contracting of the "core" musculature correct? If that is true, in movement, especially of the spine, their must be an agonist/antogonist relationship between the contractors (shortening) and noncontractors (lengthening) muscles. In terms of athletics the spine moves. In the industrial setting where I work, we see the interspinalis muscles become (in my humble opinion) de-conditioned especially in transverse movement. As a result, we still deal with back pain even though their "core" muscles are strong as can be. I also don't know that I buy the idea that our spines only have so many
"flexes" in them before they break. The analogy used was that of a wire bending which will eventually break. Unlike a wire, the body has the potential to actually become better with use. So for me the search continues to find that balance between bracing (protecting the back) and moving (using the back) to perform functional activities in a wide variety of settings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
