Archived Discussions from other forums

[John A. Casler]

This thread will include various archived discussions I have had with various Coaches and Sports Scientists that might be valuable

[John A. Casler]

Nov 30, 2008 15:38:16 GMT -8 John A. Casler said:

This thread will include various archived discussions I have had with various Coaches and Sports Scientists that might be valuable

2 12 2003

> John Casler wrote:
>
> <As an interesting point, our ancestors generally walked on "all fours".
This
> provided a type of disc load, and anterior chain load, that we, who walk
> erect, don't receive. Without going into substantial detail, conditioning
> this full anterior chain in an unbraced fashion, like standing cable abs
and
> ab rollouts, seems to offer distinct advantages to disc health and
> torso/spinal/back support.>


Mel Siff wrote:

> *** What happened in the past or what is theorised to have happened in our
> distant past is of little relevance to how we move with our current
bodies.

John Casler writes:

I would beg to differ. The anatomical development of our structures still
has a direct and distinct relationship with our current anatomy and
biomechanics. This inheritance still offers constraints, and should be
entered into the awareness.

Although I don't have the time or typing skills to go into all the examples,
I might offer the simple structure of the spinal disc as an example.

For millions of years vertebrates were primarily on all fours. This placed
a certain type of loading patterns on the disc structure and caused it to
develop a greater strength and thickness in the anterior (to us) or frontal
disc and a lesser thickness and strength in the posterior structure. My
memory may be off, but I think I have read that the anterior disc body is 4
x stronger or thicker than the posterior.

This development was (IMO) due to the stresses placed on the disc in a
horizontal rather than vertical spine.

It is very clear that this has left us, who now have to operate with
vertical spines, with a "weakened or shall we say less strong" posterior
disc structure that is more subject to injury with out present postural
orientation . Very seldom is a disc herniated to the anterior portion. It
is almost exclusively posterior/lateral.

This "weakness" cannot be changed by us. All we can do is strengthen and
condition the anterior support system to prevent the forces that can cause
damage.

Mel Siff wrote:

> I am not sure if it was he or another of the well-known spinal experts who
have
> pointed out that bipedal locomotion metabolically speaking is more
efficient
> (but not necessarily faster) than quadruped locomotion, so that there
appears
> to be far too much uncorroborated speculation about modern humans being
less
> well equipped to cope with the physical rigours of life than earlier
humans.
> Has it occurred to some of these theorists that modern humans may have
> evolved into stronger, faster and more versatile, tougher beings than
their
> early ancestors?

John Casler writes:

My observation has nothing to do with metabolic/locomotive efficiency. It
is also not limited to "human ancestors". I am observing the stresses that
caused structural development since vertebras came into existence.

Nor am I saying that "we were not meant to stand upright", as many do when
they look for excuses for back problems. I simply recognize the remnant
structures and anatomy we have to deal with, and look for ways to best deal
with it.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

> John Casler wrote:
>
> <As an interesting point, our ancestors generally walked on "all fours".
This provided
> a type of disc load, and anterior chain load, that we, who walk erect,
don't receive.>
>

John Parks wrote:

> ** Just a thought I have about evolving from apes. I am not so sure we
did. My hint is
> the patella. Apes do not have a knee cap. Pelvic and femur angle does not
apparently
> require one. The Discovery Channel on TV is great for information like
that.

John Casler writes:

Hi John, Just to clarify, in case you didn't see my later posts.

My reference to "ancestors" was not necessarily to apes. I was including
all horizontal vertebrates. The horizontal spine and all its features has
developed over millions of years. Many features that on occasion show us
vertical application weaknesses stem from that development.

Although I find the vertical adaptation incredibly effective, the disc
structure and its accompanying weakness is a prime example of the horizontal
development offering us a weakness to work around over the next million.

All the best,

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

Mel Siff wrote:

> [Once again I have to cite Gracovetsky (I think), who once suggested that
biomechanical
> analysis of posture and gait based upon the fossil record might equally
well suggest that
> apes descended from mainstream man, rather than vice versa. Has anyone
else read more
> about that speculation? Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

I haven't read anything specific to that subject but I was introduced to a
fellow last week who could certainly add credence to the potential of that
supposition. : )

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

> Mel Siff wrote:
>
> *** Are you stating that the mechanics of human movement today bears a
> distinct relationship to the mechanics of movement of some alleged
ancestor

John Casler writes:

It is unquestionable. We cannot escape the structure we use which has
evolved from millions of years of function, and structure would thereby
affect mechanics.

I am simply stating that the spine we use today is the product of millions
of years in a position that we
seldom assume for any period of time. Since we use this "product" we have
been adapting to what it previously had evolved to do.

I gave one very good example of the disc structure. Which developed a
stronger anterior body because when on all fours more stress is put on the
anterior than the posterior.

In a four legged animal when the body is suspended on all fours, the
anterior (to us) kinetic chain is engaged to stay erect. Standing or
walking on four legs with the bulk of the body suspended from the
skeleton/spine meant that there was continuous tension and load on the
anterior disc body. Over millions of years this section thickened and
adaptated to that load.

Today as we have changed orientation that "extra" strength of the anterior
disc does not help us. The lesser strength of the posterior has not had
time to develop to equal proportions.

Couple this with a majority of people in a de-conditioned state and it
contributes (notice I am not saying is largely responsible) to back
problems.

It is rather well known that the spine should not be "flexed" when under
extreme vertical load. It is a recipe for "disc damage". Strangely enough
the same is not true for the mildly "extended" and/or "neutral" spine. And
it is rather rare to find a pathological extrusion of the disc in the
anterior section due to general activity or athletic load.

Even the structure of the vertebrae themselves, the structure of the facets
and spinal processes, and the amount of movement they allow in specific
directions are remnant developments from this positioning.

This is not to say we have not adapted reasonably well as we have become
more and more erect, but we cannot change the previously developed structure
we have to deal with in just 3-4 million years.

I'm not sure what you think I am saying, but these are rather simple
observations and while possibly unique, not to terribly complicated.

Mel Siff wrote:

If that is the case, then we also need to state that our adult
> mechanics of movement likewise bear a distinct relationship to that of
> crawling infants. After all, ontogeny (development of the individual)
> appears to reflect phylogeny (development of the species), so that this
> conclusion should not be regarded as unusual. Right? Please explain how
and
> why you consider movement patterns phylogenically to be much the same in
> creatures whose motor actions reflect different solutions to the same
motor
> problem.

John Casler writes:

Those are your conclusions, I stated mine rather simply.

> John Casler:

<Although I don't have the time or typing skills to go into all the
examples,
> I might offer the simple structure of the spinal disc as an example.
>
> For millions of years vertebrates were primarily on all fours. This placed
a
> certain type of loading pattern on the disc structure and caused it to
> develop a greater strength and thickness in the anterior (to us) or
frontal
> disc and a lesser thickness and strength in the posterior structure. My
> memory may be off, but I think I have read that the anterior disc body is
4 x
> stronger or thicker than the posterior.>
>
> Mel Siff:
>
> *** Yet, we do not know how much time any of those creatures spent in
> different postures, because even today, some of the apes may spend a
> significant amount of time sitting on the haunches, standing on the hind
legs
> and using the arms in trees. In other words, we cannot assume that the
> structure of any creature was influenced only by one form of movement or
> posture. Adaptation in all creatures involves dealing with many types of
> motor problem, not simply one in which the spine is always subjected to a
> single posture or manner of movement. For example, can we really make
> generalisations that all athletes exhibit the same strengths and
weaknesses
> irrespective of their different activities?

John Casler writes:

First off, not one time did I mention "apes" except to clarify that I was
not directly referring to them. Apes are probably "transitionals".

I think we can safely assume that all four legged vertebrates spend most of
their time with a spine that was loaded more horizontal than vertical. This
is
very significant as far as any continuous loads and forces that are
transmitted
though the spine and how the spine reacted, adapted, and developed over
time. I am
just recognizing these developments and how we deal with them in this
"relatively new" position.

> John Casler wrote:
>
> This development was (IMO) due to the stresses placed on the disc in a
> horizontal rather than vertical spine.
>
> <It is very clear that this has left us, who now have to operate with
> vertical spines, with a "weakened or shall we say less strong" posterior
disc
> structure that is more subject to injury with out present postural
> orientation. Very seldom is a disc herniated to the anterior portion. It
is
> almost exclusively posterior/lateral.
>
> This "weakness" cannot be changed by us. All we can do is strengthen and
> condition the anterior support system to prevent the forces that can cause
> damage.>
>
> Mel Siff wrote:
>
> *** Weakness is not simply a matter of musculoskeletal structure, but also
> the neurological control in using that structure.

John Casler writes:

That primarily restates what I just wrote. I said we can strengthen
(obviously by neural and muscular means) the support system to deal with
this anatomy which we cannot quickly change.


> John Casler:
>
> <Nor am I saying that "we were not meant to stand upright", as many do
when
> they look for excuses for back problems. I simply recognize the remnant
> structures and anatomy we have to deal with, and look for ways to best
deal
> with it.>
>
Mel Siff wrote:

> ***Why should these structures be remnant?

John Casler writes:

Because they were developed from/for another position and offer less than
optimal efficiency as structures for our needs.

Mel Siff wrote:

Just because the fossil record
> may show that various life forms have some common features does not mean
> that these features are "remnants" or successful adaptations. It might
also
> mean that a specific structure concurrently developed in different
creatures
> which provided optimal environmental adaptation at that time. It may be
that
> the same genetic blueprint economically offered features that could be
used
> concurrently in any number of different life forms without those features
> developing in a strict hierarchy from one creature to its later
descendants.

John Casler writes:

OK, maybe you can explain how having the posterior section of the disc being
substantially weaker is an "optimal environmental adaptation" for those of
us who walk erect and have to deal with vertical spinal loads.

Mel Siff wrote:

> The problems that people have with their spines does not simply have to do
> with their structure (nature), but even more so with their nurture
> (conditioning by physical activities).

John Casler writes:

Earth to Mel!! That is what I stated to start this. I stated that I perform
certain exercises to "nurture" (your word) my back.

Mel Siff wrote:

It is grossly misleading to attribute
> problems in any living creature largely to the structure of certain
> subsystems, because the process of adaptation enables any creature to
enhance
> the mechanical properties of any musculoskeletal structures. This in fact
is
> the entire foundation of strength and conditioning. We also need to
recall
> the well-known physiological principle which states that "function
determines
> structure", not simply vice versa, as is implied by your analysis of
spinal
> performance.

John Casler writes:

Let's see, I recognize that millions of years of "function" led to structure
and now we have changed the function by walking erect but structure has not
"caught up". Where have I erred?

Nothing I have said is "grossly misleading" and I have not attributed any
problems "largely" to structure. I just stated that structure has not
caught up with the postural change.

I mean really, I just like to do standing abs because they help my back, and
I know why.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

> John Casler wrote:
>
> <My reference to "ancestors" was not necessarily to apes. I was including
all
> horizontal vertebrates. The horizontal spine and all its features has
> developed over millions of years. Many features that on occasion show us
> vertical application weaknesses stem from that development.
>
> Although I find the vertical adaptation incredibly effective, the disc
> structure and its accompanying weakness is a prime example of the
horizontal
> development offering us a weakness to work around over the next million.>

Mel Siff wrote:

> *** Since many quadrupeds also suffer from back pain and dysfunction, how
can
> one state categorically that the vertical spine inherently is weaker than
the
> horizontal spine? If you spend some time in a veterinarian practice, you
> will soon affirm this fact for yourself.

John Casler writes:

You are drawing conclusions to argue that I have not stated. Of course
quadrupeds have back pain and dysfunction. Where did I state otherwise?
You can safely bet that those problems are not caused by vertical loading of
the spine however and are likely different than "our" problems.

Mel Siff wrote:

> In fact, it is misleading to state that any spine is simply horizontal or
> vertical, because the curvatures and changes in curvature which take place
in
> all types of spine happen to be exposed to components of force in all
planes
> of movement. Each spine has developed to cope optimally with the types of
> activity that it has to deal with in every creature. If we examine almost
any
> creature and compare its performance to that of another creature in a
> certain situation, we are sure to find relative "weaknesses." Illicit or
> unwarranted comparisons like that do not prove that the "vertical" human
> spine is universally any more or less efficient than the spines of any
other
> creatures. To each its own.

John Casler writes:

Are you saying that if one walks and stands on "all fours", and seldom
stands on only two, that they will experience the same spinal disc loads on
average? Somehow, I don't think that is a reasonable assumption.

You really think our spines have "optimally adapted" As I stated early
on, the adaptation is remarkable but by no stretch would I term it,
"optimal".

Mel Siff wrote:

> Knowing what we know about biological adaptation, it would be overly
> simplistic and misleading to believe that problems like human spine
> dysfunction (note: dys-function, not dys-morphia) are primarily a
consequence
> of some silly oversights of nature. The problems lie far more in silly
> sedentary, hypomobile or unskilled humans than imperfect morphology. A
bad
> workman always blames his tools instead of how he USES or abuses those
tools!

John Casler writes:

You are assigning an importance to the structural recognition that I did not
give it.


Mel Siff wrote:

> Possibly you recall my citing a study (on "palaeopathology") from the
> Scientific American which re-examined various fossilised remains and
> concluded that the crouched "stone age" stance that was popularised by
> artists about a century ago may have also been characteristic of a person
> suffering from arthritis or similar spinal degeneration. In other words,
we
> are not even sure of the most recent healthy ancestors of man actually
> ambulated on all fours or in crouched Hollywood-like "cave man" postures.

John Casler writes:

And what relevance does this have to my recognition of current disc
structure?

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

John Parks wrote:

<<Just a thought I have about evolving from apes. I am not so sure we
> did. My hint is the patella. Apes do not have a knee cap. Pelvic and
femur
> angle does not apparently require one. The Discovery Channel on TV is
> great for information like that.>>

Greg Hart wrote:

> We had a common ancestor and although apes are close to us, they are a
> different branch of the bush of life. Homo Sapiens, however, is very
> well engineered for upright carriage and is at the end of several
> million years of bipedal evolution.

John Casler writes:

Again I should clearly state that my "conclusions" had little to do with our
immediate ancestors (the apes) since they as bipeds share the same or
similar spinal loads as we do.

The following web page might offer some interesting information regarding
the comparative skeletal structures of apes to men.

I did notice that one of the "problems" associated in this lecture series
with "bipedalism", is "slipped discs".

Hmmmm...

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

John Casler writes:

I don't know why the web page from the post below didn't get through.

Here it is:

bluesky.mediasrv.swt.edu/anthro2414/skeletonboutline.pdf

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Casler" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: [Supertraining] Evolution and Spinal Integrity


> John Parks wrote:
>
> <<Just a thought I have about evolving from apes. I am not so sure we
> > did. My hint is the patella. Apes do not have a knee cap. Pelvic and
> femur
> > angle does not apparently require one. The Discovery Channel on TV is
> > great for information like that.>>
>
> Greg Hart wrote:
>
> > We had a common ancestor and although apes are close to us, they are a
> > different branch of the bush of life. Homo Sapiens, however, is very
> > well engineered for upright carriage and is at the end of several
> > million years of bipedal evolution.
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> Again I should clearly state that my "conclusions" had little to do with
our
> immediate ancestors (the apes) since they as bipeds share the same or
> similar spinal loads as we do.
>
> The following web page might offer some interesting information regarding
> the comparative skeletal structures of apes to men.
>
> I did notice that one of the "problems" associated in this lecture series
> with "bipedalism", is "slipped discs".
>
> [WHICH following web page? Mel Siff]
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> Regards,
>
> John Casler
> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
> Century City, CA
>

[John A. Casler]

John Casler wrote:

> I gave one very good example of the disc structure. Which developed a
> stronger anterior body because when on all fours more stress is put on the
> anterior than the posterior.

Mel Siff wrote:

> [Putting more stress on any given structure does not prove that a given
> structure necessarily is weaker; only that it has to adapt in such a way
> as to cope with optimal efficiency with that given situation. Difference
> in structure does not imply any specific weakness. Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

This is what I stated.

1) I did not anywhere state that putting stress on a structure "made" it
weaker.

2) I did say that the disc "has to adapt in such a way as to cope with
optimal efficiency with that given situation", which is exactly what you
state above.

3) I did say that the in the current structure one portion is less
strong (the posterior). Less strong does "not" mean it is "made" weaker,
it means it "is" weaker relative to the stronger portion

John Casler wrote:

> Today as we have changed orientation that "extra" strength of the anterior
> disc does not help us. The lesser strength of the posterior has not had
> time to develop to equal proportions.

Mel Siff wrote:

> [If you are convinced about this theory, then please furnish biomechanical
> studies which prove that our present structure is inherently weaker than
> others to which you are comparing it.

John Casler writes:

I have no intention of searching for any biomechanical studies, since this
is not even questionable. It is taught in many college level courses.
Below is an excerpt from one such course/lecture outline found at:
216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:a8NPWkEatmgC:bluesky.mediasrv.swt.edu/a
nthro2414/skeletonboutline.pdf+ape+skeleton&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This outline clearly seems to agree that bipedalism causes disc problems.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
19
Topic 9: Human & Ape Skeletal Anatomy
V. Problems because of bipedalism.
A. Slipped discs.
B. Hernias.
C. Varicose veins.
D. Hemorrhoids.
E. Bunions.
F. Narrowed birth canal.
2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------


In the above lecture, the very first reference is "slipped discs" which is a
more pedestrian term for "herniated disc". In humans, as I have stated
before, most protrusions and herniation in the lumbar spine occur in the
posterior/lateral portion of the disc.

This is because the anterior is "stronger".

Even the accentuated Lumbar curvature is a development to slightly compress
the weaker posterior portion and reduce its exposure.

You have yet to explain why the anterior disc is stronger than the
posterior. I on the other hand have. This conclusion is not from scouring
reams of research, it is rather simple common sense.

In the horizontal spine, the support to the posterior disc portion is rather
complex, but if one is relaxed and just standing on all fours the posterior
disc body is slightly compressed making it less likely to suffer damage. In
this position the "anterior portion" is the one that is subject to more
"opening" and internal pressure. This is why it has thickened and is
stronger than the posterior.

The spine in a quadruped will not experience the same loading for example as
we experience during a squat or deadlift.

Q: What is the greatest weight ever lifted by man?
A: The back lift

It is performed for all intent and purposes on all fours. But is there any
"disc compressive" danger to the lumbar spine during this lift? I would say
very little if performed correctly.

Mel Siff wrote:

Has it not occurred to you that
> our development is complete and if it is going to "evolve" at all , it is
going
> to happen so slowly that it will do nothing for millions of years to
> assist us. However, much more rapid adaptation and structural
> strengthening will take place if the body is subjected to progressive
> gradual overload - right now! Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

That is just as I have stated, throughout. What do you think the exercise I
suggested is, if not "progressive gradual overload - right now!"

Additionally, No, it has not occurred to me that our development is
"complete", and I certainly don't think one day we will wake up with
different spinal discs. It seems that it has take around 4-5 million years
for us (and 5-7 million years for apes) to get to this point. I would think
we will continue to see development in the next 4-5 million.

John Casler wrote:

> I'm not sure what you think I am saying, but these are rather simple
> observations and while possibly unique, not to terribly complicated.


Mel Siff wrote:

> [Exactly, it is not very complicated to also conclude that each species
> and each creature within a species is optimally adapted at any given time
> to cope with all environmental stresses if it is to survive, and that
> inherent "weaknesses" are just structural *differences* which are
> typical of a given creature, not some sort of remnant aberration. Mel
Siff]

John Casler writes:

Who said we have "aberrant" remnants. All out development is certainly
patterned from creatures that existed "LONG" before we did. There are
thousands of structural and physiological similarities "which are" remnants
of development before our own.

So it seems you are saying that all of our body structures are "optimally
adapted"? That is a tough theory to agree with. Do you have any research
or references to support that?

Mel Siff wrote:

> [You have not answered the issue of phylogeny and ontogeny with respect to
> the biomechanics of locomotion and posture. Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

I think I have addressed the broad phylogenic issues. I don't think
ontogeny has any bearing on this other than obfuscation.

> Mel Siff wrote:
>
> <<Why should these structures be remnant? >>
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> Because they were developed from/for another position and offer less than
> optimal efficiency as structures for our needs.


Mel Siff wrote:

> [That is entirely a personal point of view, which has not been
corroborated
> by any practical or theoretical evidence.

John Casler writes:

Again, maybe you can give us a "practical/theoretical" explanation as to the
differences in disc thickness and strength. I have stated that I see them
developing from quadrupeds. Can you tell us how and why you think they
developed in this way?

Mel Siff wrote:

Even "perfectly" adapted and "final"
> anatomical structures can be used suboptimally, and experience damage or
> decay. If any structures happened to be inherently suboptimal for
prolonged
> periods, they would not have survived.

John Casler writes:

I would find it interesting to know what structures we have that are,
"perfectly" adapted and "final".

Mel Siff wrote:

Your explanations are based upon a belief
> that all humans are in some state of unresolved structural weakness, but
you
> have not distinguished between structural and functional causes of spinal
> dysfunction.

John Casler writes:

I have stated all along that "problems" are contributed to both structural
weakness "and" functional inefficiency. Remember, in the beginning the
question was about a conditioning exercise.

The disc structure I have offered as an example is clearly fact. The way it
reacts to certain stresses of everyday life is fact. The advantages that
structure has in a quadruped and the disadvantages it gives to bipeds is
also fact.

I guess that is a "belief".

Mel Siff wrote:

It is clear that even the most highly developed and complete
> spine in any creature will experience damage or failure if it is used
> inappropriately - this has nothing to do with evolution or the failure of
> evolution to resolve any such problem timeously. Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

Who said anything about evolution failing?

> John Casler wrote:
>
> OK, maybe you can explain how having the posterior section of the disc
being
> substantially weaker is an "optimal environmental adaptation" for those of
> us who walk erect and have to deal with vertical spinal loads.


Mel Siff writes:

> [I repeat - that is a structural peculiarity, not necessarily an inherent
*weakness*
> in the human spine. You are confusing structural characteristics with
structural
> weaknesses. It is these characteristics which decree how one should
optimally
> use the spine. One cannot simply assume that a given spine should be
automatically
> capable of coping with all mechanical stresses without a very specific
conditioning
> regime which causes the spine to adapt to provide that capability.

John Casler writes:

I repeat- "explain how having the posterior section of the disc being
substantially weaker is an "optimal environmental adaptation" for a biped?

Mel Siff wrote:

That is why the
> incidence of spinal injury in Weightlifters has been shown to be much
lower than
> in the general population.

John Casler writes:

The reason that the "incidence of spinal injury in Weightlifters has been
shown to be much lower than in the general population" is that Weightlifters
progressively condition and load the spine and Torso Stabilization Mechanism
to improve spinal health and condition. Further more, they lift with sound
biomechanical actions that account for and guard against "injury causing"
stress.

Do let me assure you that if their anterior and posterior disc bodies were
of equal strength, they would safely lift even more. Actually one of the
most significant limitations to their abilities "IS" this very disc!!!

> Mel Siff wrote:
>
> > The problems that people have with their spines does not simply have to
do
> > with their structure (nature), but even more so with their nurture
> > (conditioning by physical activities).
>
> John Casler wrote:
>
> Earth to Mel!! That is what I stated to start this. I stated that I
perform
> certain exercises to "nurture" (your word) my back.


Mel Siff wrote:

No, you continue to maintain that the human spine has developed with
> inherent structural weaknesses. My different point of view is that what
> you call inherent weaknesses are nothing more than structural
> characteristics.

John Casler writes:

I think strength and weakness "are" structural characteristics.

You can call them what you wish, and have any view point you like. Your
definition does not change their relational nature to the other structures.
Nor does it change I disagreeertion that these "structural characteristics",
were developed from long adaptive (or is that adaptative) periods.

Mel Siff wrote:

By training in different ways, I can alter the relative
> strengths and weaknesses of any part of the spine and its musculature, but
> you persist in believing that human spines exhibit some definite inherent
> structural weakness. As I reiterated before: "function determines
structure".
> Cosmos to John! Mel Siff

John Casler writes:

Infinity to Mel! : ),

Ok, maybe you can tell me how you would train the disc to make the posterior
portion as strong as the anterior disc body.

It cannot be done, but you can train the structures that "will" offer
support. Now here we are back to my original premise, of doing standing
cable abs in the pursuit of providing the additional support.

> John Casler wrote:
>
> Let's see, I recognize that millions of years of "function" led to
structure
> and now we have changed the function by walking erect but structure has
not
> "caught up". Where have I erred?
>
> Nothing I have said is "grossly misleading" and I have not attributed any
> problems "largely" to structure. I just stated that structure has not
> caught up with the postural change.

Mel Siff wrote:

> [That is an unproved assertion - your error lies in assuming that
structural
> differences automatically imply structural weakness.

John Casler writes:

Your error lies in trying to say that "there is no difference" even though
the structure clearly shows there is. While I disagreeertion of the development
is my own, it is not unreasonable to draw this conclusion base on my stated
evidence.

1) The anterior and posterior portions of the disc body are of a
different strength and thickness.
2) Almost all disc herniations occur in the posterior lateral sections

That gun is not only smoking, it is melting from being fired so often.

Mel Siff wrote:

If I am wrong, please
> furnish the necessary evolutionary and biomechanical evidence or your
> own theoretical proof based upon static and dynamic analysis of the human
> spine.

John Casler writes:

I have stated my opinion which may be unique. I have no idea, what in the
world "theoretical proof" is. I was under the impression that if something
is theory it is not proven.

Mel Siff wrote:

If we are not to repeat all that has been said before, you now need to
> cite some evidence from comparative anatomy and anthropology and address
> my questions on the thermodynamics of adaptation. Opinion begets opinion
> and science demands a little more validation than that. Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

"Thermodynamics of Adaptation"?

Sheeesh! I have stated the obvious. I have connected the dots. I have
filled in the blanks. I have offered concise and reasonable opinion. I
will not argue re-worded points that have made already, thrust out as if I
am, in some way against them.

Below is the paragraph I wrote that you decided was blasphemous to all of us
"optimally adapted" humans:
==================
As an interesting point, our ancestors generally walked on "all fours".
This provided a type of disc load, and anterior chain load, that we, who
walk erect, don't receive. Without going into substantial detail,
conditioning this full anterior chain in an unbraced fashion, like standing
cable abs and ab rollouts, seems to offer distinct advantages to disc health
and torso/spinal/back support.
===================

I stand by that statement in total.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

John Casler wrote:

> > I gave one very good example of the disc structure. Which developed a
> > stronger anterior body because when on all fours more stress is put on
the
> > anterior than the posterior.

and

> > Today as we have changed orientation that "extra" strength of the
anterior
> > disc does not help us. The lesser strength of the posterior has not had
> > time to develop to equal proportions.

James Wickham wrote:

Hmmm... what has not been mentioned is the structures surrounding the
bodies of the vertebrae
and discs themselves that help to keep the disc in its place and help
prevent herniations.

In the quadruped, as John states, their was more of a load on the anterior
chain due mainly to
gravitational forces acting on a horizontal spine. Covering the anterior
bodies of the vertebrae and the
anterior disc is a very strong and wide ligament....the anterior
longitudinal ligament. This ligament
runs the length of the spinal column. I would guess that this ligament
adapted to prevent any excessive
anterior movement of the disc relative to the vertebrae in quadrupeds.

If you look at the structure of our vertebral column we still have the
strong anterior longitudinal
ligament but at the posterior portion of the disc and vertebral bodies
there is also a corresponding
posterior longitudinal ligament. It is not nearly as strong as the anterior
ligament and is only half as
wide in the lumbar region where the postero-lateral portions of the disc are
somewhat exposed. The same
site where herniations occur.

So maybe it is not a question of whether the anterior portion of the
intervertebral disc is stronger than
the posterior, I'm not sure, but that the anterior portion of the disc is
better covered by ligamentous
structures than the posterior so as it cannot herniate in this direction.

What do you think?

John Casler writes:

Hi James, this is an excellent point and is also evidence of my original
contention. In my first post on this subject I "begged off" a complete
discussion of the additional structures that lend credence to the
unquestionable heritage.

The structure of the vertebrae itself, the positioning of the spinal
processes, the range of motion differences (from neutral) between extension
and flexion, the longitudinal ligaments, the disc body, all point to the
fact that the spine has developed or was first formed as a quadrupedal
structure and we have inherited those structures.

I have often read that in addition to the ligamental protection you mention,
that the actual disc body is (I believe) four times thicker or stronger to
the anterior.

It is of course, an unquestionable conclusion that this structural character
is suited more for the loads experienced in a spine loaded in the
horizontal, quadrupedal orientation.

When the posterior disc is compressed (as it would be in a quadruped simply
by virtue of gravity) it offers an extreme resistance to herniation damage
by virtue of that compression. Just think of the advice we give regarding
heavy squats. "Maintain a tightly arched lumbar spine".

I can pretty much guarantee very few will have anterior disc body
herniations, even under rather large loads, in spite of that positioning.

All of this "form", and all of the conditioning of the Torso Stabilization
Mechanism, is to "thwart" this structural legacy and allow heavy loads
despite its characteristics.

Acknowledging these "characteristics" allows us to condition ourselves, and
use a posture or form that gives maximum effectiveness.

I find the incredible adaptability of the quadrupedal development to the
bipedal to be astounding. The complex arrangement of structures and forces
create a dynamic biomechanical marvel. Understanding this marvel and
extracting the maximum performance from it is rather daunting and challenges
us all.

I like to feel that even with my limited experience and "self taught"
awareness, that I have a rather broad grasp on this subject. While maybe
slightly arrogant, I do feel that much of the misunderstanding of the system
is obfuscated by a few individuals who lost factual direction, and pursued
portions of the maze, as important paths, while in reality, they were "dead
ends".

Thanks for your comments.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

> Mel Siff wrote:
>
> > Knowing what we know about biological adaptation, it would be overly
> > simplistic and misleading to believe that problems like human spine
> > dysfunction (note: dys-function, not dys-morphia) are primarily a
consequence
> > of some silly oversights of nature. The problems lie far more in silly
> > sedentary, hypomobile or unskilled humans than imperfect morphology. A
bad
> > workman always blames his tools instead of how he USES or abuses those
tools!

> John Casler wrote:
>
> You are assigning an importance to the structural recognition that I did
not
> give it.

Mel Siff wrote:

>

John Casler writes:

I am not implying anything. I am stating that I never said the current disc
structure was a "silly oversight of nature". And your references to "bad
workmen" and such is not in any way interpretive of my point. You seem to
forget that my original point was one of using an exercise to
"strengthening" a portion of the Torso Stabilization Mechanism.

How we got here, from there, I don't know.

You cannot have it both ways. The structure and function can not be
"optimal" without minimal conditioning. The structure by itself is not
optimal if it is "saddled" with a deconditioned Torso Stabilization
Mechanism. This condition (or really de-condition) is a menu for
dysfunction or injury.

To maintain a continuous exchange based on your misinterpretation of my
point seems rather pointless.

> John Casler wrote:
>
> And what relevance does this have to my recognition of current disc
> structure?

Mel Siff wrote:

> [As much as your arguments that the movement mechanics of primeval
> humans relates to the movement mechanics of modern man. Do you have
> any studies which show how the spinal structure of early life forms
> has" evolved" into those of modern humans and why modern spines
> should be considered to be inherently weak and phylogenetically
> undeveloped? What about the possibility that primeval spines were
> less suitable and weaker in certain respects than modern spines, so
> that it was inevitable that some more modern, "superior" spines had
> to develop because they helped humans to survive? Mel Siff]

John Casler writes:

The above is an exact example of your misinterpretation. Please show me
where, I made any such reference to "primeval humans".

So it seems your contention is irrelevant to what I said completely. I have
even repeatedly said I am not comparing even primates which are bipedal. My
total reference was to quadrupeds and comparative spinal development to
bipeds.

Allow me to summarize:

It seems we are in "agreement" that one needs to condition the body for
"optimal" utilization of its "structure and function"

It seems we "disagree" as to the "path of inheritance" of the current spinal
structure from quadrupeds, and my supposition that the current structure is
"not" optimal, but requires minimal specific conditioning to reduce
incidence of disc injuries.

Does that about cover it?

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

John Casler wrote:

> > I gave one very good example of the disc structure. Which developed a
> > stronger anterior body because when on all fours more stress is put on
the
> > anterior than the posterior.

and

> > Today as we have changed orientation that "extra" strength of the
anterior
> > disc does not help us. The lesser strength of the posterior has not had
> > time to develop to equal proportions.


James Wickham wrote:

Hmmm... what has not been mentioned is the structures surrounding the
bodies of the vertebrae
and discs themselves that help to keep the disc in its place and help
prevent herniations.

In the quadruped, as John states, their was more of a load on the anterior
chain due mainly to
gravitational forces acting on a horizontal spine. Covering the anterior
bodies of the vertebrae and the
anterior disc is a very strong and wide ligament....the anterior
longitudinal ligament. This ligament
runs the length of the spinal column. I would guess that this ligament
adapted to prevent any excessive
anterior movement of the disc relative to the vertebrae in quadrupeds.

If you look at the structure of our vertebral column we still have the
strong anterior longitudinal
ligament but at the posterior portion of the disc and vertebral bodies
there is also a corresponding
posterior longitudinal ligament. It is not nearly as strong as the anterior
ligament and is only half as
wide in the lumbar region where the postero-lateral portions of the disc are
somewhat exposed. The same
site where herniations occur.

So maybe it is not a question of whether the anterior portion of the
intervertebral disc is stronger than
the posterior, I'm not sure, but that the anterior portion of the disc is
better covered by ligamentous structures than the posterior so as it cannot
herniate in this direction.

What do you think?

John Casler writes:

Hi James, this is an excellent point and is also evidence of my original
contention. In my first post on this subject I "begged off" a complete
discussion of the additional structures that lend credence to the
unquestionable heritage.

The structure of the vertebrae itself, the positioning of the spinal
processes, the range of motion differences (from neutral) between extension
and flexion, the longitudinal ligaments, the disc body, all point to the
fact that the spine has developed or was first formed as a quadrupedal
structure and we have inherited those structures.

I have often read that in addition to the ligamental protection you mention,
that the actual disc body is (I believe) four times thicker or stronger to
the anterior.

It is of course, an unquestionable conclusion that this structural character
is suited more for the loads experienced in a spine loaded in the
horizontal, quadrupedal orientation.

When the posterior disc is compressed (as it would be in a quadruped simply
by virtue of gravity) it offers an extreme resistance to herniation damage
by virtue of that compression. Just think of the advice we give regarding
heavy squats. "Maintain a tightly arched lumbar spine".

I can pretty much guarantee very few will have anterior disc body
herniations, even under rather large loads, in spite of that positioning.

All of this attention to "form", and all of the conditioning of the Torso
Stabilization
Mechanism, is to "thwart" this structural legacy and allow heavy loads
despite its characteristics.

Acknowledging these "characteristics", allows us to condition ourselves, and
use a posture or form that gives maximum effectiveness.

I find the incredible adaptability of the quadrupedal development to the
bipedal to be astounding. The complex arrangement of structures and forces
create a dynamic biomechanical marvel. Understanding this marvel and
extracting the maximum performance from it is rather daunting and challenges
us all.

I like to feel that even with my limited experience and "self taught"
awareness, that I have a rather broad grasp on this subject. While maybe
slightly arrogant, I do feel that much of the misunderstanding of the system
is obfuscated by a few individuals who lost factual direction, and pursued
portions of the maze, as important paths, while in reality, they were "dead
ends".

Thanks for your comments.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

[John A. Casler]

(This is the third submission of this reply which has
not been posted as yet)


John Casler wrote:

> > I gave one very good example of the disc structure.
Which developed a
> > stronger anterior body because when on all fours
more stress is put on the
> > anterior than the posterior.

and

> > Today as we have changed orientation that "extra"
strength of the anterior
> > disc does not help us. The lesser strength of the
posterior has not had
> > time to develop to equal proportions.


James Wickham wrote:

Hmmm... what has not been mentioned is the structures
surrounding the bodies of the vertebrae
and discs themselves that help to keep the disc in its
place and help prevent herniations.

In the quadruped, as John states, their was more of a
load on the anterior chain due mainly to
gravitational forces acting on a horizontal spine.
Covering the anterior bodies of the vertebrae and the
anterior disc is a very strong and wide ligament....the
anterior longitudinal ligament. This ligament
runs the length of the spinal column. I would guess
that this ligament adapted to prevent any excessive
anterior movement of the disc relative to the vertebrae
in quadrupeds.

If you look at the structure of our vertebral column we
still have the strong anterior longitudinal
ligament but at the posterior portion of the disc and
vertebral bodies there is also a corresponding
posterior longitudinal ligament. It is not nearly as
strong as the anterior ligament and is only half as
wide in the lumbar region where the postero-lateral
portions of the disc are somewhat exposed. The same
site where herniations occur.

So maybe it is not a question of whether the anterior
portion of the intervertebral disc is stronger than
the posterior, I'm not sure, but that the anterior
portion of the disc is better covered by ligamentous
structures than the posterior so as it cannot herniate
in this direction.

What do you think?

John Casler writes:

Hi James, this is an excellent point and is also
evidence of my original
contention. In my first post on this subject I "begged
off" a complete
discussion of the additional structures that lend
credence to the
unquestionable heritage.

The structure of the vertebrae itself, the positioning
of the spinal
processes, the range of motion differences (from
neutral) between extension
and flexion, the longitudinal ligaments, the disc body,
all point to the
fact that the spine has developed or was first formed
as a quadrupedal
structure and we have inherited those structures.

I have often read that in addition to the ligamental
protection you mention,
that the actual disc body is (I believe) four times
thicker or stronger to
the anterior.

It is of course, an unquestionable conclusion that this
structural character
is suited more for the loads experienced in a spine
loaded in the
horizontal, quadrupedal orientation.

When the posterior disc is compressed (as it would be
in a quadruped simply
by virtue of gravity) it offers an extreme resistance
to herniation damage
by virtue of that compression. Just think of the
advice we give regarding
heavy squats. "Maintain a tightly arched lumbar
spine".

I can pretty much guarantee very few will have anterior
disc body
herniations, even under rather large loads, in spite of
that positioning.

All of this attention to "form", and all of the
conditioning of the Torso Stabilization
Mechanism, is to "thwart" this structural legacy and
allow heavy loads despite its characteristics.

Acknowledging these "characteristics", allows us to
condition ourselves, and
use a posture or form that gives maximum effectiveness.

I find the incredible adaptability of the quadrupedal
development to the
bipedal to be astounding. The complex arrangement of
structures and forces
create a dynamic biomechanical marvel. Understanding
this marvel and
extracting the maximum performance from it is rather
daunting and challenges
us all.

I like to feel that even with my limited experience and
"self taught"
awareness, that I have a rather broad grasp on this
subject. While maybe
slightly arrogant, I do feel that much of the
misunderstanding of the system
is obfuscated by a few individuals who lost factual
direction, and pursued
portions of the maze, as important paths, while in
reality, they were "dead
ends".

Thanks for your comments.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA