The Useless Core Strengthening

[Jon Newman]

Hi John,

More questions. Hope that's ok.

Do you have any sources for the preventative aspect?

Do you think if everyone was conditioned as you suggest that the commonality of back problems would significantly diminish?

If the TSM is reflexive why are so many people deconditioned? Are these people areflexive?

[Diane]

John,
In answer to your replies to my latest two posts:
See this train of logic.

[bernard]

but in essence, for millions of years the spine was not "axially" loaded. It was supported between forelegs and hind legs.

You're dead again, John.
We are walking since 5/7 millions years and just try to walk like a chimp is the best way to have shoulders and neck problems. Your forelegs are too short and you're looking at the floor. Not a chance to survive.
The spine is never axially loaded that is why I asked a curvatures' question you ignored!

BTW, why are you ignoring the fact that a torso, in a heavy lift, is a secondary thing since that the real force of lifting is done by legs.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I wish you could attend one of my workshops, and see how simple and understandable it is.

Such an advise is rarely well seen on a site that provides only free resources and knowledge. If you want to discuss, just bring arguments that refute ours.
Do not be so shy, if you have good ones, people will come to your workshops, if you have not, I'm sorry for you.

[Randy Dixon]

I may provide a body snatch example that proves the back extends and the belly expands in the same way during the lift of the load. It is mandatory. -Bernard

This is basically what I am trying to say. So I agree with you here.

You're dead again, John.
We are walking since 5/7 millions years and just try to walk like a chimp is the best way to have shoulders and neck problems. Your forelegs are too short and you're looking at the floor. Not a chance to survive. -Bernard

The spine didn't develop in man, it developed before man, nature isn't wasteful and it simply made changes. That is the evolutionary point. Besides, I would have to see your evidence for the claim that we have been walking completely upright 5-7 million years ago. This is way before Homo sapiens have been identified.

BTW, why are you ignoring the fact that a torso, in a heavy lift, is a secondary thing since that the real force of lifting is done by legs.-Bernard

Then why all your concern with the compressive forces? If you support a weight through the upper body, either through grasping or carrying and stand how do you bypass the spine? I guess the smiley signifies that as a joke, like
this one: Person 1: The Polish Space Agency has declared that it will send a manned flight to the sun. Person 2. You can't go to the Sun, it is too hot. Person 1. Yeah, but we're going at night.

The spine is never axially loaded that is why I asked a curvatures' question you ignored!-Bernard

I'm not sure how to answer that one either. What do you mean the spine is never axially loaded? Because of the force distrubition of the spinal curves? I think we need more information on your thoughts here.

[Randy Dixon]

More questions. Hope that's ok.

Do you have any sources for the preventative aspect?

Do you think if everyone was conditioned as you suggest that the commonality of back problems would significantly diminish?

If the TSM is reflexive why are so many people deconditioned? Are these people areflexive?-Jon

I have some short answers of my own.

#1 There are a few studies that show conditioning or the condition of either the abdominals and/or extensors is correlated with less back pain. Lieber-Sorenson is one that come immediately to mind.

#2 Not in the general public. We don't exactly know what is causing most back problems, while many chronic LB patients display motor control dysfunction with the TrA it probably isn't causative.

#3 Because something is reflexive doesn't mean that that reflex can't become inhibited or distinguished, nor does it mean that it can't become dysfunctional, and even if the reflex is healthy doesn't mean that structurally the body is capable of performing what is demanded, different stimuli produce different reactions and some reactions are not going to be common enough to ensure the bodies ability to perform it. I think this is very similar to the question: if corrective movement is instinctive why are there so many people who don't do it?

[Diane]

Randy, I think it's common consensus among evolutionary biologists and ethologists that the upright posture evolved long before human primates did.
Here's one source, William Calvin.

the early hominid habitat was likely a transition zone between forest and grassland, the place where we adapted to heat stress and learned to eat a different diet. Upright posture was likely a byproduct of such factors. What’s surprising to many of us is that the postural rearrangement comes so early, back when the DNA dating suggests we parted company with the ancestral chimps. And millions of years before bigger brains developed.

Here is an interactive site for refreshing one's info on the whole topic of upright posture., among other things.

[bernard]

Randy,
Please use the board facility for quoting

About our old ancestor

Did I say that man was designed to carry heavy lifts at night?
You perfectly know, Randy, that a snatch needs "legs". I'm not joking but just pointing out that John try to focus the discussion on an accessory spot.

Originally Posted by Randy Dixon

I'm not sure how to answer that one either. What do you mean the spine is never axially loaded? Because of the force distrubition of the spinal curves? I think we need more information on your thoughts here.

Take a flat plastic ruler (30 cm)

1. Let it straight on a table and apply an axial force on it (a rapid one with your fist)
2. Same experience with the ruler, bended.

I put a solution in attachment.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

Ah Yes the Psoas.

Yes, the "Great" Psoas!

[bernard]

Originally Posted by Randy Dixon

We don't exactly know what is causing most back problems, while many chronic LB patients display motor control dysfunction with the TrA it probably isn't causative.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

99% of all back problems are caused by a deconditioning of the Torso Stabilization Mechanism.

Randy,

I'm quite sure that inactivity is part of a real cause but I can't agree with John's statement that comes from nowhere.

[bernard]

Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):209-25. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:

• Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):206-8.

Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain.

Koumantakis GA, Watson PJ, Oldham JA.

School of Physical Therapy, Drosopoulou 6, Kypseli, Athens 112 57, Greece. gak4@otenet.gr

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to examine the usefulness of the addition of specific stabilization exercises to a general back and abdominal muscle exercise approach for patients with subacute or chronic nonspecific back pain by comparing a specific muscle stabilization-enhanced general exercise approach with a general exercise-only approach. SUBJECTS: Fifty-five patients with recurrent, nonspecific back pain (stabilization-enhanced exercise group: n=29, general exercise-only group: n=26) and no clinical signs suggesting spinal instability were recruited. METHODS: Both groups received an 8-week exercise intervention and written advice (The Back Book). Outcome was based on self-reported pain (Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and cognitive status (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Locus of Control Scale) measured immediately before and after intervention and 3 months after the end of the intervention period. RESULTS: Outcome measures for both groups improved. Furthermore, self-reported disability improved more in the general exercise-only group immediately after intervention but not at the 3-month follow-up. There were generally no differences between the 2 exercise approaches for any of the other outcomes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A general exercise program reduced disability in the short term to a greater extent than a stabilization-enhanced exercise approach in patients with recurrent nonspecific low back pain. Stabilization exercises do not appear to provide additional benefit to patients with subacute or chronic low back pain who have no clinical signs suggesting the presence of spinal instability.

Publication Types:

• Clinical Trial
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

PMID: 15733046 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

These patients are not the 1% missing !

[Jon Newman]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the response. I'll look into the Lieber-Sorensen reference. On a side note, I've heard of Biering-Sorensen. Do you suppose it is the same team and Beiring got married (or vice versa)?

On point number three, reflexes are a subset of instincts. Not all instincts are reflexes on my understanding.

What do you suppose accounts for this epidemic of core dysreflexia?

[Jon Newman]

Hi Randy,

I looked for a reference with that author. Now I'm wondering if you meant Biering-Sorensen in the first place and simply made a mistake with the name. If it wasn't in error, could you provide more a reference? Thanks.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by Diane

John,
In answer to your replies to my latest two posts:
See this train of logic.

Hi Diane,

I agree with most of what is posted in your link, however that has nothing to do with what I have suggested.

I am not an ab sucking, nor ball balancing advocate which is what your link is primarily in response to.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by bernard

You're dead again, John.
We are walking since 5/7 millions years and just try to walk like a chimp is the best way to have shoulders and neck problems. Your forelegs are too short and you're looking at the floor. Not a chance to survive.
The spine is never axially loaded that is why I asked a curvatures' question you ignored!

Hi Bernard,

I am not sure of your "glib" responses, but it would seen that you believe that spines have only been around for 5-7 million years?

I'm sure most who study evolution would find that a bit short.

Originally Posted by bernard

BTW, why are you ignoring the fact that a torso, in a heavy lift, is a secondary thing since that the real force of lifting is done by legs.

I'm not sure why you continue to engage me, since you make statements that make no sense.

I can only surmise that you are "playing dumb" for enjoyment, or to stimulate exchange.

What heavy lift are you talking about where the "real force" is done by the legs?

What is a "real force"? Does that mean that the Torso creates "unreal force"?

Any force that is transmitted through the Kinetic Chain that includes the Torso has to be dealt with. I haven't seen in this discussion where we are limiting the discussion to Primary Movers.

A Kinetic Chain has force creation and management requirements and one cannot exist without the other for a successful lift or opposition to the force load.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by bernard

Such an advise is rarely well seen on a site that provides only free resources and knowledge. If you want to discuss, just bring arguments that refute ours.
Do not be so shy, if you have good ones, people will come to your workshops, if you have not, I'm sorry for you.

Bernard,

It seems you have a very strange web personna.

I only meant that this medium is much more limiting than a one on one or personal interaction.

[John A. Casler]

More questions. Hope that's ok.

Originally Posted by randy

Do you have any sources for the preventative aspect?

Hi Randy,


Since my system is rather different than anything (most similar to McGill) there is no data of that type. Proving prevention would require a huge study, over great periods of time.

Originally Posted by randy

Do you think if everyone was conditioned as you suggest that the commonality of back problems would significantly diminish?

Short answer is yes. In general, most all force related back injuries are related to the TSM and the conditioning level of the individuals being insufficient to meet the demand.

Additionally, when awareness is instilled, the instances where "additional and volitional" implementation are required will have a higher percentage of success.

Originally Posted by randy

If the TSM is reflexive why are so many people deconditioned? Are these people areflexive?-Jon

Reflexes are improved by improved conditioning. If the body is not used it loses general function. Additionally, the reflex itself is still there, but the deconditioned state of the muscles may not be up to the task.

Originally Posted by randy

I have some short answers of my own.

#1 There are a few studies that show conditioning or the condition of either the abdominals and/or extensors is correlated with less back pain. Lieber-Sorenson is one that come immediately to mind.

#2 Not in the general public. We don't exactly know what is causing most back problems, while many chronic LB patients display motor control dysfunction with the TrA it probably isn't causative.

The Richardson/Hodges/Jull fascination with the TvA is (IMHO) well off the track and has substantially taken away from really engaging the elements that need addressing. So I agree that the TvA is not causative.

Originally Posted by randy

#3 Because something is reflexive doesn't mean that that reflex can't become inhibited or distinguished, nor does it mean that it can't become dysfunctional, and even if the reflex is healthy doesn't mean that structurally the body is capable of performing what is demanded, different stimuli produce different reactions and some reactions are not going to be common enough to ensure the bodies ability to perform it. I think this is very similar to the question: if corrective movement is instinctive why are there so many people who don't do it?

Good point. I am not sure about "corrective movement" being totally instinctive though. I think that is a tough call, since one can learn "more correct" , more efficient and more safe methods, than left totally to our own devices.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by bernard

Yes, the "Great" Psoas!

Hi Bernard, is there an explanation with this??

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by bernard

Randy,

I'm quite sure that inactivity is part of a real cause but I can't agree with John's statement that comes from nowhere.

As well you shouldn't since my statement is 100% opinion.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by bernard

Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):209-25. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:

• Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):206-8.

Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain.

Koumantakis GA, Watson PJ, Oldham JA.

School of Physical Therapy, Drosopoulou 6, Kypseli, Athens 112 57, Greece. gak4@otenet.gr

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to examine the usefulness of the addition of specific stabilization exercises to a general back and abdominal muscle exercise approach for patients with subacute or chronic nonspecific back pain by comparing a specific muscle stabilization-enhanced general exercise approach with a general exercise-only approach. SUBJECTS: Fifty-five patients with recurrent, nonspecific back pain (stabilization-enhanced exercise group: n=29, general exercise-only group: n=26) and no clinical signs suggesting spinal instability were recruited. METHODS: Both groups received an 8-week exercise intervention and written advice (The Back Book). Outcome was based on self-reported pain (Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and cognitive status (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Locus of Control Scale) measured immediately before and after intervention and 3 months after the end of the intervention period. RESULTS: Outcome measures for both groups improved. Furthermore, self-reported disability improved more in the general exercise-only group immediately after intervention but not at the 3-month follow-up. There were generally no differences between the 2 exercise approaches for any of the other outcomes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A general exercise program reduced disability in the short term to a greater extent than a stabilization-enhanced exercise approach in patients with recurrent nonspecific low back pain. Stabilization exercises do not appear to provide additional benefit to patients with subacute or chronic low back pain who have no clinical signs suggesting the presence of spinal instability.

Publication Types:

• Clinical Trial
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

PMID: 15733046 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

These patients are not the 1% missing !

Hi Bernard,

I have tried all your links and none have lead to a list of the "exercises" used, or how they were implemented.

Without these this study has no significance.

[Jon Newman]

Hi John,

You state:

Short answer is yes. In general, most all force related back injuries are related to the TSM and the conditioning level of the individuals being insufficient to meet the demand.

Can you expand on this? "Force related back injuries" is a bit vague as well as the phrase "related to". In what way are these things related. Do you have any studies that back up this contention?

Reflexes are improved by improved conditioning.

I haven't noticed that vigorous reflexes correlate with conditioning at all.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by Jon Newman

Hi John,

You state:



Can you expand on this? "Force related back injuries" is a bit vague as well as the phrase "related to". In what way are these things related. Do you have any studies that back up this contention?

Hi Jon,

Well the interesting thing about back injuries, is that they are many times complex and can be so "general" that it is difficult to be specific.

In fact I should have added "force related injuries" not caused by "unmanageable" forces like car accidents, high impact falls, etc.

I don't find studies usefull to this except to categorize causes.

Originally Posted by jon newman

I haven't noticed that vigorous reflexes correlate with conditioning at all.

All motor-neural pathways have impulse strength. I am under the impression that healthy and conditioned tissues respond with greater speed and effectivness, than those which are "under used" and de-conditioned.

That has also been my observation.

There are some (and I am among them) who beleive a "reflex" can be trained via repetitive volitional activation.

It has also been demonstrated that a "reflexively initiated action" which is what we (I) am talking about, is also improved via conditioning of the muscles involved, since deconditioning is a distinct disadvantage.

[Jon Newman]

Hi John,

I noticed you put reflexes in quotations and I'm uncertain why that is. When I think of reflexes I think of things like knee jerk, photic sneeze, righting, etc. I know it is funny when cartoons show a body builder at a doctor's office and the goofball doctor taps the body builder's knee and gets kicked over. The few times I've seen that almost happen in the clinic is with someone with a significant pathology that could hardly pass as well conditioned.

I don't find studies usefull to this except to categorize causes.

I thought the cause of all these problems was a deconditioned TSM?

Regardless, while I don't think a study would likely help your case, it might, and either way it would help increase our understanding.

[EricM]

I don't want to detract too much from the thread but when we talk about "back injury" I presume this is distinct from "back pain." Of course we know there is little direct correlation between tissue damage and pain. John is your approach directed at those who have incurred actual injury? If so, how are you determining that injury has occurred? Or are you drawing a correlation between 'incorrect' or 'inefficient' biomechanics and pain?

In my practice, I treat a lot of back pain, almost exclusively in the absence of any objective injury. I dropped protocols of spinal stabilization from my treatments a few years ago and have never noticed any discernible difference in outcomes; this being just my observation of course. In fact I find the cognitive element involved in teaching core stability negatively influences the patients experience of movement, increasing the likelihood of unhelpful fear-avoidance behaviors.

If we apply evolutionary reasoning to this argument, what would be the advantage of altered abdominal motor patterns to the individual suffering from back injury, or pain?

Eric

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

99% of all back problems are caused by a deconditioning of the Torso Stabilization Mechanism.

Originally Posted by Bernard

Randy,

I'm quite sure that inactivity is part of a real cause but I can't agree with John's statement that comes from nowhere.
__________________
bernard

Hi Bernard,

I am beginning to also think your quote attributed to me "comes from nowhere".

I can't seem to find it anywhere in my postings. Can you point me to the post so I can see the context?

[Diane]

Hey John,

Hi Bernard, I am not sure of your "glib" responses, but it would seen that you believe that spines have only been around for 5-7 million years?

Hello, Bernard didn't say spines had only been around that long, he said walking had;

We are walking since 5/7 millions years and just try to walk like a chimp is the best way to have shoulders and neck problems.

I would like to add, Bernard is neither glib nor strange, he is French, and that gives him much latitude for something else entirely, namely "insouciance."

Hi Diane,
I agree with most of what is posted in your link, however that has nothing to do with what I have suggested.
I am not an ab sucking, nor ball balancing advocate which is what your link is primarily in response to.

I think I got that. I think I get that instead you want to build up the armor to be very hard, thick, and very fast so that the tire can't "blow" when heavy weights are lifted. Is that a bit closer? And I suppose the only way to build that up (in case we need to assume sherpa duty) is by... let me guess... weight training?

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by Diane

Hello, Bernard didn't say spines had only been around that long, he said walking had;

Hi Diane,

I know what he said, but you forgot to cut and paste his intro of : You're dead again, John.

Originally Posted by bernard

You're dead again, John.
We are walking since 5/7 millions years and just try to walk like a chimp is the best way to have shoulders and neck problems.

This a response to me comparing quadripedal spines evolving to bipedal???

Originally Posted by Diane

I would like to add, Bernard is neither glib nor strange, he is French, and that gives him much latitude for something else entirely, namely "insouciance."

I see, I guess that explains a lot. I get it

Originally Posted by Diane

I think I got that. I think I get that instead you want to build up the armor to be very hard, thick, and very fast so that the tire can't "blow" when heavy weights are lifted. Is that a bit closer? And I suppose the only way to build that up (in case we need to assume sherpa duty) is by... let me guess... weight training?

I didn't post the SHERPA example, it was someone else.

It seems that many go to such "extremes", and have a tendency to "project" a bit too much. I haven't written anything about "hard thick armor" and my only mention of weight lifting was to a post of the same from Bernard.

In simple, I have studied and know the Torso Stabilization Mechanism and feel I understand it quite well. That Mechanism is inclusive of the sum total of actions, structures and processes that may be called upon to support the Torso, including the spine, during all activities.

Anyone in therapy knows that "strengthening" a body may require progressive force stimulation. But that is not the total of the situation, since flexibility and more specific kinetic chain work is sometimes needed that may be more similar to Pilates or other disciplines.

The implementation and conditioning of the Torso has to be focused on the daily needs of the individual with as much added insurance as one might deem necessary.

So yes there can be weight training actions for gross muscular strength if needed, but the average person will only need a therapeutic amount to regain and maintain condition.

Of greater importance and of greater difficulty to implement, is the educational awareness of effective postures and positions that more effectively support the more delicate (or injured) tissues.

There are many "back experts" who are well regarded and are completely off the mark, with obscure, and absurd studies of inhibited TvA and Multifidus and the like. I have walked in the shoes of one who has pathology in the region, and am adept enough, and educated enough to understand what happens "when I do this".

While you may not agree with me, I would suggest you look at my suggestions for what they really state, and if they don't align with yours, simply ask me why.

If I haven't an answer, then we can explore for one. If I do, you can compare and align it with your understanding, and see where it needs adjustment.

Thanks for your response.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I know what he said, but you forgot to cut and paste his intro of : You're dead again, John.

Hi John but you started saying that I was "dirty" Harry.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I'm not sure why you continue to engage me, since you make statements that make no sense.

For you John, for you.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

It seems you have a very strange web personna.

Yes. I'm mad.
BTW, what is a very strange web personna?

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

Hi Bernard, is there an explanation with this??

Yes, you seems to ignore that the poas needs a crucial placement in a body snatch. It is why there is an external rotation of feet. So it maintains the lumbar curvature during the lifting and avoid the discs compression. It is basic biomechanics.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I have tried all your links and none have lead to a list of the "exercises" used, or how they were implemented.

Without these this study has no significance.

Just give your for deconstruction.

http://www.somasimple.com/forums/sho...&postcount=125

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I am beginning to also think your quote attributed to me "comes from nowhere".

You're right => Nowhere

So John, you seem a very talkative person but you're unable to bring a single argument that answers to our questions: You're not a strange web personna for sure, just a common guy we are seeing constantly on the site: Big claims, no fact or theory. This is the strange thing.

[bernard]

http://www.spinalhealth.net/ana.html

The three curves of your spine are important because they actually allow the spine to support more weight than if it were straight. This is because the curves increase resistance to axial compression - that is, a head-to-toe squishing of the spine. The physics of the spine state that resistance of a curved column is directly proportional to the square of the number of curves plus one. In math terms that can be written as: (3)2 + 1 = 10. That means that 10 times more weight can be supported by a curved spine than if it were straight. That is why proper lifting is so important. If you bend at the waist to pick up a box you straighten out your lumbar spine. By losing a curve you cannot support as much weight and are therefore at risk for an injury. By bending at the knees and squatting down you are able to maintain your spinal curves and protect your back.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by John Casler

Hi Bernard, is there an explanation with this?? (Picture of the Olympic Weightlifting Snatch)

Originally Posted by Bernard

Yes, you seems to ignore that the poas needs a crucial placement in a body snatch. It is why there is an external rotation of feet. So it maintains the lumbar curvature during the lifting and avoid the discs compression. It is basic biomechanics.

Hi Bernard,

I am not sure why you feel I have confusion regarding the Psoas.

What makes you think I ignore the Psoas function in the Olympic Snatch? I have never disscussed its role in the snatch with you.

But since you're in the question answering mood, I would be interested in the "crucial placement" ( I assume that means bodily position) you speak of, and your explanation of the biomechanics involved with the "external rotation of the feet" so as to "maintain the lumbar curvature".

While I have no dispute that the Psoas is, and can be, a "stabilizer" here, I would like to hear your "interpretation" of the "basic biomechanics" and Mechanism.

You see, it is part of the TSM.

Please be as detailed as possible.

Originally Posted by Bernard

So John, you seem a very talkative person but you're unable to bring a single argument that answers to our questions: You're not a strange web personna for sure, just a common guy we are seeing constantly on the site: Big claims, no fact or theory. This is the strange thing.

I am unaware of any argument that you have raised that I have not answered and answered in good detail. I have also supplied you with facts, but if you wish to not accept them that is you choice.

I can only believe that, as another poster stated, that there seems to be somewhat of a language barrier, which creates an even more difficult communication.

[bernard]

John,

It is not because you lost all credibility with my previous post that you may answer to asked questions with some other questions.

If you are unable to understand that we lift heavy loads with the lower limbs and that the spine absorbs loads (increasing the curves), spreading it within active "shock absorbers" (our muscles) then there is a terrific work you have to do with biomechanics.

I'm thinking that you're focused on your TSM but in my opinion, the torso is not a think that is still in the air without any ground connection. There is a pelvis, and some primary movers (legs).

You try to "tighten" a body segment that needs all the contrary to be fully effective because you're afraid of shear stresses that never come in the real world.

More, if the buttocks move when we are lifting some heavy things that's normal that the torso moves: there is a constant COG adjustment. Trying to limit this normal planning is the best way to make heat with muscles and lose the intelligence of Nature's design.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by Bernard

John,

It is not because you lost all credibility with my previous post that you may answer to asked questions with some other questions.

Hi Bernard.

I can only say that I am not concerned with you're affecting my credibility. Obviously you wish to "play some game" here.

My interest lies in discussing the topic. If you would like to point out any "on topic" question you feel I didn't answer, please do.

Meanwhile, you have "side stepped" my question about details regarding your assertions regarding the stabilizing function of the Psoas. If I remember correctly, you also failed to answer how the Sherpa you posted could carry that pack up a steep incline, without activating the abdominal musculature to control the load on his back.

There is no need to be so adversarial. One can have "contentious exchange" without negative emotion.

Originally Posted by Bernard

If you are unable to understand that we lift heavy loads with the lower limbs and that the spine absorbs loads (increasing the curves), spreading it within active "shock absorbers" (our muscles) then there is a terrific work you have to do with biomechanics.

Having lifted "heavy loads" for over 45 years, and still lifting them, I feel I have a rather complete grasp on doing so. I am willing to accept that most of this is due to a lack of communication, and suggest that more "on topic" dialogue might have the potential to allow us each to grasp what the other is saying.

I have much experience and background with the study of Kinetic Chains. As such, I analyze the transitional force loads to the chain, from base to force, though the chain. This allows us to understand what, and which process, structure, or muscle action manages what part of the summed action.

Originally Posted by Bernard

I'm thinking that you're focused on your TSM but in my opinion, the torso is not a think that is still in the air without any ground connection. There is a pelvis, and some primary movers (legs).

As above, I analyze the complete Kinetic Chain for "all" the force management needs. The TSM is activated to the degree necessary to provide support and stability to the action.

Somehow I get the idea, you think I am suggesting some type of continual "over" action, and that is not the case.

Originally Posted by Bernard

You try to "tighten" a body segment that needs all the contrary to be fully effective because you're afraid of shear stresses that never come in the real world.

That is your misconception of what I have written or attempted to communicate. The Torso is a body portion that has the ability to "transform" itself from flexible and plastic to stiff and rigid via the TSM.

Conditioning the system, simply helps insure that it has a wide range of capability from which to accommodate daily or even athletic needs.

However, from what you have posted, I get the impression that you don't value the degree of torso stability needed for "heavy" loads. This could simply be that we have different ideas of what constitutes "heavy", or you have not lifted these loads yourself to be able to speak firsthand about them. Additionally, you may not have experience of lifting with a disc pathology to determine what support needs are required, and to what degree.

Originally Posted by Bernard

More, if the buttocks move when we are lifting some heavy things that's normal that the torso moves: there is a constant COG adjustment. Trying to limit this normal planning is the best way to make heat with muscles and lose the intelligence of Nature's design.

I am not sure of the message above. You can offer additional explanation if you wish.

[Diane]

John, the comm gap may be due to a couple things, I think:

1. We are a bit leery on this board, of hard physical training concepts based on personal perception. The language we encourage here is neuroscience.

2. Mostly we are interested in treating persistent pain from a nervous system standpoint, not in physical training for the sake of physical training of body parts, be they torsos or abs or what have you.

It may well be that the horse (thread) is dead, and flogging it with whatever conceptual whip you might have, even a really cool and novel and original one, is to no avail.

[bernard]

John,

About credibility:I cited

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

99% of all back problems are caused by a deconditioning of the Torso Stabilization Mechanism.

You wrote then

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I am beginning to also think your quote attributed to me "comes from nowhere".

I replied then

Originally Posted by Bernard

You're right => Nowhere

And then not a single word came out from your side about this mysterious affirmation.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I have much experience and background with the study of Kinetic Chains.

We have too with... lively patients.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

you also failed to answer how the Sherpa you posted could carry that pack up a steep incline

Not true at all, I replied with a curvatures question and once more, you failed to bring a single word about this marvel.
BTW, I'll play guilty since I'm a trekker and I took the time to confirm my opinion before I put the Sherpa's picture on the site. Did you know that they compress the spinal curves? (look at the head!) and did you know that they extend the spinal curves at the same time, putting the weight on the top of the backpack. That makes sence to me. It works perfectly because they understood the importance of this fact.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

Additionally, you may not have experience of lifting with a disc pathology to determine what support needs are required, and to what degree.

Additionally, John, I'm unable to share my medical condition with you because this kind of confidence requires some qualifications missing in the knowlege you have. But, since it is not a secret and I put already the response to this question on the site: I had three whiplashes (1982, 1985, 1987) and suffered from a LBP some years ago (1980). These little things ended when I understood the "strength" I had in my body and when I let it move more freely without any fear and force.

[Bas Asselbergs]

John said

"Having lifted "heavy loads" for over 45 years, and still lifting them, I feel I have a rather complete grasp on doing so."

John, this is an example of what makes this discussion so difficult. I know olympic lifters, brick layers and farmers who lift as much if not more than you. Does this make them experts too? I know for a fact that the olympic lifter would NOT know a TrA if it bit him on the *ss. You see, you can't just bring personal experience and general postulations to this board and expect to receive respect for the "science" of the approach.

You should continue to do what you do, but don't expect anyone to change their mind here about core strenghtening based on your presentations. Need more definitions (what is back pain or injury - what is "normal" - ) and much more than "understanding kinetic chains" to understand human motion and function.

John said:
"There are some (and I am among them) who beleive a "reflex" can be trained via repetitive volitional activation."

Yes, but do you have any real evidence that these trained reflexes (say: in a javelin thrower) become automated? Since that is what a regular non-athlete activity requires. Every time an athlete throws the javelin, he still goes through the visualisation of the throw, the whole pattern....Not exactly reasonable when working in a busy warehouse...

I believe that if you can get anyone to be positive about movement and moderate cardio, you have a BIG gain in their health potential. I don't believe that you have given enough here to make bigger claims than that.

thanks for your contributions - always good to be pushed to think.

[bernard]

Dyn Med. 2006 May 31;5:6. Related Articles, Links
Assessment of neuromuscular and haemodynamic activity in individuals with and without chronic low back pain.

McKeon MD, Albert WJ, Neary JP.

Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada. walbert@unb.ca.

ABSTRACT : BACKGROUND : Biering-Sorenson (1984) found that individuals with less lumbar extensor muscle endurance had an increased occurrence of first episode low back pain. As a result, back endurance tests have been recommended for inclusion in health assessment protocols. However, different studies have reported markedly different values for endurance times, leading some researchers to believe that the back is receiving support from the biceps femoris and gluteus maximus. Therefore, this study was designed to examine the haemodynamic and neuromuscular activity of the erector spinae, biceps femoris, and gluteus maximus musculature during the Biering-Sorenson Muscular Endurance Test (BSME). METHODS : Seventeen healthy individuals and 46 individuals with chronic low back pain performed the Biering-Sorenson Muscular Endurance Test while surface electromyography was used to quantify neuromuscular activity. Disposable silver-silver-chloride electrodes were placed in a bipolar arrangement over the right or left biceps femoris, gluteus maximus, and the lumbosacral paraspinal muscles at the level of L3. Near Infrared Spectroscopy was used simultaneously to measure tissue oxygenation and blood volume changes of the erector spinae and biceps femoris. RESULTS : The healthy group displayed a significantly longer time to fatigue (Healthy: 168.5s, LBP: 111.1s; p </= 0.05). Significant differences were shown in the median frequency slope of the erector spinae between the two groups at 90-100% of the time to fatigue while no significant differences were noted in the haemodynamic data for the two groups. CONCLUSION : Although the BSME has been recognized as a test for back endurance, individuals with chronic LBP appear to incorporate a strategy that may help support the back musculature by utilizing the biceps femoris and gluteus maximus to a greater degree than their healthy counterparts.

PMID: 16734915 [PubMed - in process]

[Jason Silvernail]

Great find, Bernard!

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

you also failed to answer how the Sherpa you posted could carry that pack up a steep incline

Originally Posted by bernard

Not true at all, I replied with a curvatures question and once more, you failed to bring a single word about this marvel.
BTW, I'll play guilty since I'm a trekker and I took the time to confirm my opinion before I put the Sherpa's picture on the site. Did you know that they compress the spinal curves? (look at the head!) and did you know that they extend the spinal curves at the same time, putting the weight on the top of the backpack. That makes sence to me. It works perfectly because they understood the importance of this fact.

Hi Bernard,

Intersting how you "edited" what was asked. I didn't ask how a Sherpa carried a pack up an incline,

I asked: "If I remember correctly, you also failed to answer how the Sherpa you posted could carry that pack up a steep incline, without activating the abdominal musculature to control the load on his back."

You were claiming that activation of the abs was not only not nessessary, but detrimental.

Asking a question about "spinal curvature" to deflect the question is not a sufficient answer.

While I would be interested in your suggestion that the curves are both compressed and extended at the same time, we need to answer the first questions first.

Do you claim that the Sherpa does not have activation of the TSM, including the abdominals?

Originally Posted by bernard

Additionally, John, I'm unable to share my medical condition with you because this kind of confidence requires some qualifications missing in the knowlege you have.

Condescending insults, have no place in mature exchange of ideas. I would suggest a higher level of communication.

Originally Posted by bernard

But, since it is not a secret and I put already the response to this question on the site: I had three whiplashes (1982, 1985, 1987) and suffered from a LBP some years ago (1980). These little things ended when I understood the "strength" I had in my body and when I let it move more freely without any fear and force.

While I fail to see this as being complicated beyond my qualifications, I would be most interested in your LBP.

What was the cause? Was it part of a trauma that caused the whiplash? To what degree was there any disc damage?

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by John Casler

"Having lifted "heavy loads" for over 45 years, and still lifting them, I feel I have a rather complete grasp on doing so."

Originally Posted by bas

John, this is an example of what makes this discussion so difficult. I know olympic lifters, brick layers and farmers who lift as much if not more than you. Does this make them experts too? I know for a fact that the olympic lifter would NOT know a TrA if it bit him on the *ss. You see, you can't just bring personal experience and general postulations to this board and expect to receive respect for the "science" of the approach.

Hi BAS,

Apparently you didn't read some of my earlier posts. I somehow get this strange "vibe" that you feel someone with "hands on, or personal experience" somehow has less knowledge. My point, was that one can "learn" only so much from studies and text books and I have my fair share of those, but when you can actually experience your education and knowledge base in action and do so for many years it offers greater validation to "the nuts and bolts" of the physiology and biomechanics.

If a TvA "bites you in the ass" you have a large problem, and I would suggest that I have not only a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the TvA, but understand its function in "stabilizing the torso" to a substantially greater degree than the TvA promoters like our pals from "down under".

Originally Posted by bas

You should continue to do what you do, but don't expect anyone to change their mind here about core strenghtening based on your presentations. Need more definitions (what is back pain or injury - what is "normal" - ) and much more than "understanding kinetic chains" to understand human motion and function.

Thanks and I will continue, "doing what I do".

What "definitions" are you talking about that I need defining? Most people know if they have back pain and or suffered injury, I might agree that "normal" might need defining.

Further, that is relevant to treatment, but only to the point of knowing the specific goals, limits, and approximate timetable of the rehab to rehabbed condition.

Regarding "kinetic chains", Steindler found them valuable to understanding the myriad of forces we have to deal with in complex actions.

I would be interested in what you suggest need to be understood (or more precisely what you might feel is lacking in understanding here)

Originally Posted by John Casler

"There are some (and I am among them) who believe a "reflex" can be trained via repetitive volitional activation."

Originally Posted by bas

Yes, but do you have any real evidence that these trained reflexes (say: in a javelin thrower) become automated? Since that is what a regular non-athlete activity requires. Every time an athlete throws the javelin, he still goes through the visualisation of the throw, the whole pattern....Not exactly reasonable when working in a busy warehouse...

While visualization of an act can certainly help one to "learn" and produce a volitional complex task, it has nothing to do with a reflex.

And training an action to take place through repetitive action to the point it happens, "without" volitional control, might qualify as a reflex, but I was talking about learning or relearning a motor nerve pattern so that it happens, without cognizance.

Originally Posted by bas

I believe that if you can get anyone to be positive about movement and moderate cardio, you have a BIG gain in their health potential. I don't believe that you have given enough here to make bigger claims than that.

thanks for your contributions - always good to be pushed to think.

I have little idea what you are talking about. I haven't mentioned "cardio" anywhere on this listserve????

Did you read what I wrote?

I am happy I have stimulated you to think, yet you didn't respond to the content. You responded to my adding my experience to my "knowledge base".

You know there are many "so called" back experts, who can quote you study after study of "inhibited TvA and Multifidus" and how they now responding "milliseconds" slower than they should for reasonable Torso Stability, and how to take a Sphygmomanometer or some other device and measure the function and condition of the TvA.

On this "evidence" then craft sophisticate protocol to "re-educate and re-condition" these lagging systems.

THAT!!!! is what needs to be questioned.

To be sure, I am only too happy to be as detailed as necessary for you to understand the TSM, but let me assure you, it IS NOT walking around holding your breath and keeping your abs tensioned, as I think a few have assumed.

[bernard]

Hello John and fine to see that you have some courage/temerity to fight the beasts we are.

I must say that I'm very glad you came back to the site since you are a perfect example for the readers/members.

Perhaps I was too "light" in my previous posts and because I have seen your "silhouette" on your site, I think you are able to carry "heavier" sentences.

Beware, I'm not so "insouciant" as Diane wrote it but certainly cynical and I like "sharp" phrasing. I'm sorry but "political correct" speaking is a thing that I consider as weird and non constructive, so...

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

Do you claim that the Sherpa does not have activation of the TSM, including the abdominals?

Yes, he just do not care about your "patented" speciality. He use abs to breath and accessorily with light activation in the control of the load. He uses stronger muscles to carry the backpack but you failed to see the trap I brought with the paper. Jason understood the beauty of the Sherpa's strategy but you didn't.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

You know there are many "so called" back experts,

The problem comes with this specialization. Spine is not the cause of LBP, LBP is a consequence of a more complex biomechanical process.
Experts are focused on spines and think the problem and solution are at the same place. The solution is elsewhere as "underdevelopped" people are showing it.

Spine absorbs and transmits forces : You have just to point out where and how?

[Bas Asselbergs]

OK, John, briefly.
"I would be interested in what you suggest need to be understood (or more precisely what you might feel is lacking in understanding here)"

The nervous sytem.

Which is made clear by this:
"While visualization of an act can certainly help one to "learn" and produce a volitional complex task, it has nothing to do with a reflex." You so missed the point - even with ALL the movement-pattern training of an athlete, they still feel they need to visualize for optimal effort for the required task.

and:
"but I was talking about learning or relearning a motor nerve pattern so that it happens, without cognizance."

How do you think a "motor nerve pattern" develops?


And what "content" do I need to respond to? Your posts are rife with "I believe" , "I am under the impression", and so on. First, I agree that any training involving physical motion is potentially beneficial, but when you suggest a certain "approach" is superior to others, you need more than theories, suppositions and observations to convince me.

Furthermore, I agree that "targeting" TrA or any other single muscle system is most always nonsense and not vakid for core "stability".

You bring in others who claim things - I don't care or support them - I am talking about YOUR statements and your claims.

"I haven't mentioned "cardio" anywhere on this listserve???? "

John, I never said you did......I said that getting folks to move and do some cardio is a fine goal all by itself....


You mention "content" - they are suppositions and theoretical models. To convince me, much, much more than that is needed.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by Bernard

Hello John and fine to see that you have some courage/temerity to fight the beasts we are.

Hi Bernard, you (both personal and collective) are not beasts. If I were you and a stranger approached offering somewhat radical (or even more of the same) approaches, I too would be skeptical and apprehensive.

Your resistance to my suggestions, especially since they were made in "opposition" to some of your suggestions is by no means unexpected. Additionally, since I have only written a small amount, you are likely "projecting" the ideas of others into my assertions to "fill in the blanks".

Let me assure you, I am interested in your opinions and ideas, for my quest is not to "prove I am right", but to find the most meaningful solutions to force transmission through the Torso.

Originally Posted by Bernard

I must say that I'm very glad you came back to the site since you are a perfect example for the readers/members.

Perhaps I was too "light" in my previous posts and because I have seen your "silhouette" on your site, I think you are able to carry "heavier" sentences.

Beware, I'm not so "insouciant" as Diane wrote it but certainly cynical and I like "sharp" phrasing. I'm sorry but "political correct" speaking is a thing that I consider as weird and non constructive, so...

I need no sugar coating, but also prefer no flippant BS. Adults can have contentious discourse without being jerks.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

Do you claim that the Sherpa does not have activation of the TSM, including the abdominals?

Originally Posted by Bernard

Yes, he just do not care about your "patented" speciality. He use abs to breath and accessorily with light activation in the control of the load. He uses stronger muscles to carry the backpack but you failed to see the trap I brought with the paper. Jason understood the beauty of the Sherpa's strategy but you didn't.

I have no patents for TSM, but do for several other devices.

I might also suggest that a Sherpa might be interested in certain elements of understanding the TSM and what he might do to "improve his capability" and or reduce his injury potential. I can only assume you are certainly not saying that Sherpas do not develop injuries specific to their activities.

We are in agreement then, that the abs and other muscles of the TSM "activate" as needed to stabilize the torso, and that activation could be light to very engaged, depending on the dynamic attitude of the load and how the stress is sensed.

And you didn't set "any trap". I chose to ignore your curvature question, since you didn't include enough information or suggestions about it, to add it to the discussion.

If you care to, I am still waiting for you to explain how it extends and compresses at the same time. Additionally since it seems your "concern" is disc compression, please supply any information regarding the dynamic loading and its affect on disc compression.

As well, I am waiting to hear what caused your LBP and if you suffered disc damage and to what extent. Since you claim you have "rehabbed" or "ended" the pain with your "discoveries", I would be interested in your therapy.

As you know most studies seem to suggest that back pain will subside within 3-8 weeks or so without "ANY" treatment. so what did you do that "specifically" ended yours?

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by BAS

And what "content" do I need to respond to? Your posts are rife with "I believe" , "I am under the impression", and so on.

The "content", was relatively detailed regarding a portion of the TSM. You commented that just because I "lifted weights" that I didn't have the tools to make assessments. The "experience" component is only an amplifier, to the knowledge base. If you read most of the content, you would have seen that I have traveled this path for a while on a technical level.

Posting that you "beleive" or are of the "opinion", is generally a "non-threatening" method to offer information. I doubt you can say that anything and everything you write, is 100% certain, and if you do, you are likely mistaken. It is a fact of life.

Originally Posted by BAS

First, I agree that any training involving physical motion is potentially beneficial, but when you suggest a certain "approach" is superior to others, you need more than theories, suppositions and observations to convince me.

I don't recall ever saying I was trying to "convince" anyone of anything. I am simply presenting what I believe, at my current state of awareness, to be most accurate, or likely. You can do with it what you wish.

Originally Posted by BAS

Furthermore, I agree that "targeting" TrA or any other single muscle system is most always nonsense and not vakid for core "stability".

It seems we agree on a few things, so maybe you can tell me where we "don't" agree, and I can clarify.

Originally Posted by BAS

You bring in others who claim things - I don't care or support them - I am talking about YOUR statements and your claims.

I mentioned others since many times when you mention training or conditioning the Torso and TSM, you get lumped into the TvA sucking, and Ball Balancing groups, and I felt it necessary to make it clear that I am not in those groups.

If you have specific "claims" I have made, I would be happy to address them.

Originally Posted by BAS

You mention "content" - they are suppositions and theoretical models. To convince me, much, much more than that is needed.

Again, I am not trying to "convince" you of anything. You can hold onto or develop any belief you wish, based on any concept, idea, theory, research, or study, you wish.

If you would like to offer a "specific example" of my suppositions and theory that you question, we can explore it. One would think from what you are saying (or questioning) that there are some "hard truths" to this subject.

My purpose, is simply exchanging ideas and comparing. Truths, or most likely and logical candidates, will not be threatened by additional information. They will either be strengthened, struck down, or amended. Nothing wrong with that process.

I have no doubts presently that what I teach my clients and students is as accurate and meaningful as anything I know of. If something adds to that, then I want to know about it, for I will assimilate it.

I can only assume that is what this list serves as a main purpose.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

You know there are many "so called" back experts,

Originally Posted by Bernard

The problem comes with this specialization. Spine is not the cause of LBP, LBP is a consequence of a more complex biomechanical process.
Experts are focused on spines and think the problem and solution are at the same place. The solution is elsewhere as "underdevelopped" people are showing it.

Spine absorbs and transmits forces : You have just to point out where and how?

I agree but would broaden the scope to the total Torso, and that it "creates, transmits, and absorbs" force, and the spine is merely one of the structures in the process and "ALL" structures and processes need be considered to have meaningful awareness of not only pain, but how to provide the most effective support in translating and transmitting these force loads with the least amount of potential injury.

[Randy Dixon]

John,

I just wanted to thank you for your contributions and trying to keep it on subject. I think we could explore the whole issue a lot more if others weren't so concerned with shooting you down and instead concentrated on what is presented without reading their own biases into it. Frankly, I'm still not sure what you are recommending.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I might also suggest that a Sherpa might be interested in certain elements of understanding the TSM and what he might do to "improve his capability" and or reduce his injury potential.

Clearly, no. He has the best solution that I know and you are still unable to decipher his "curves' mystery".

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I can only assume you are certainly not saying that Sherpas do not develop injuries specific to their activities.

There is a fate in each job. Sherpas do not escape to this problem. I never said they have no problem but certainly far less than us. If they have had our LBP percentage the Sherpa community will be as common as our. It is not the case!

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

And you didn't set "any trap".

Really?

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

I chose to ignore your curvature question

Many readers will think you fell in because a "LBP" solution cannot be constructed without these basic biomechanicals facts.

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

Additionally since it seems your "concern" is disc compression

It is not my concern at all. What is the fact that make you think this?

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

As well, I am waiting to hear what caused your LBP and if you suffered disc damage and to what extent. Since you claim you have "rehabbed" or "ended" the pain with your "discoveries", I would be interested in your therapy.

I had a hard fall when I was doing the national service (in stairs with a 80kg load). There was/is a disc protrusion/herniation and I suffered of intermitent paresis since this date. I suffered until I discovered the NOI group and its neuronuts. I understood that pain is not ever linked to a RX image. I stopped to have a quasi-constant pain when I read Feldenkrais/Hanna/Butler/Shacklock... and understood that we were told wrongly that our body was badly in an upright posture and our spine "weak" designed.

[bernard]

So actually, I have pain 2/10 some minutes/year because an injury may bring sequels.
Additionally I never, never tell a patient to strength their abs. I forgot it and give in place some painfree walking duty or Tai-Chi moves.

[John A. Casler]

Originally Posted by Randy Dixon

John,

I just wanted to thank you for your contributions and trying to keep it on subject.

Hi Randy,

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Randy Dixon

I think we could explore the whole issue a lot more if others weren't so concerned with shooting you down and instead concentrated on what is presented without reading their own biases into it.

I certainly don't mind contentious exchange, for differing viewpoints can stimulate a more complete exploration of a subject. However, all need be on the same page and understanding of the scientific elements as they function. This many times is difficult with the body's core, since it is a VERY complex combination of processes, hard and soft tissues that sum to achieve a modulated support of the tissues and structures as it creates, transmits and absorbs force.

Originally Posted by Randy Dixon

Frankly, I'm still not sure what you are recommending.

Well the title of this thread is "Useless Core Strengthening", and I suggest that there are very few Cores, that would not benefit from proper strengthening and conditioning.

Now, that said, I too find some "highly regarded" conditioning programs for the Torso (core) to be ill conceived and in some cases even contributory the problems of the Core.

No body system continuously maintains itself to maximum condition without awareness, care and conditioning.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by John A. Casler

No body system continuously maintains itself to maximum condition without awareness, care and conditioning.

No body system continuously maintains itself to normal condition without normal maintenance.

We are all agreeing to this but we do not on maximum expectations.

John,

Another silly question from a stupid PT: Is there a single example (in Nature and primates) showing a strong abdominal musculature? Just curious.