|
Barrett -> Re: Chronic Upper Trap / Levator pain (September 24, 2000 4:39:00 PM)
|
You wrote, “Granted, the Medline isn't all encompassing, but I would have expected something. Those two women put a lot of time and effort into their work (a lot of their life?).”
With this comment I think you’ve hit uoon a major problem. I wrote about it six years ago in an essay called “The Fatal Heuristic.”
I pointed out that there was no evidence for what Kendall said about strength and posture. As far as the concept of “stretch weakness” goes, it was an idea, I guess, related to length-tension curve but was never demonstrated to be true. In fact, in “Electromyographic Analysis of Hip Abductor Musculature in Healthy Right Handed Persons” (Neumann et al Physical Therapy Vol. 69 No. 6 June 1989) it concludes; “…statistical analysis did not support (the concept of) stretch weakness.” I’ve never seen another study that included a look at this. There’s a pile of literature indicating that strengthening regimens don’t alter posture or necessarily lead to pain relief. I carry it with me when I teach in what I call “the red file.” I set it out but people rarely look at it. I have many of these references on my web site.
The problem I referred to earlier is this: The possibility that Kendall was wrong has, in my experience, produced a great and (I assume) embarrassed silence. Disproving Kendall’s notion has proven fairly easy, though a bit delayed I think. But wasn’t it Kendall’s responsibility to prove herself correct first? Why wasn’t she made to do this? I think that some combination of long tradition, Kendall’s notoriety and continued influence and the fact that our profession is more likely to be driven by sociological rather than scientific forces has led to this, and will continue to perpetuate it.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Barrett (edited September 24, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Barrett (edited September 24, 2000).]
|
|
|
|