Martha Hawes improves her scoliosis w exercise

[TOscoliosis]

The term loaded isn't one that I use very often but I think I understand what Scott means by it, and I think it's helpful to think about. Here's my attempt to describe it:

In every person the weight of the head is transferred via the bodies of each vertebra to the pelvis, the legs and ultimately the feet. Each vertebra supports all of the vertebrae above it. This is why vertebrae get larger the further towards the ground they are positioned - they are bearing a progressively heavier load. Ideally each vertebra is correctly positioned in relation to its neighbours, so that the load is transferred evenly and efficiently. In general, there tend to be slight asymmetries in our spines, so that the loading is not perfect.

In the case of scoliosis many vertebrae exhibit asymmetries in their position. As a result weight is supported unevenly through much of the spine. This uneven distribution of weight can be considered a loading problem. This problem is particularly difficult because, once it begins, it can turn into a vicious cycle. It is generally agreed among doctors and scoliosis researchers that the larger the curve, the more chance of the curve increasing in size.

In every person there are many structures and processes which are involved in the way the spine balances and moves. Some of the most immediate and obvious include:
The vertebrae and vertebral disks themselves.
The spinal ligaments.
The deep muscles and fascia that relate to the spine.
The less deep muscles and fascia that also relate to the spine.
The vestibular system (involving the inner ear).
The movement coordinating activities of the cerebellum.
The DNA and genes.

So far researchers haven't been able to prove that one structure or process is the most at fault for causing scoliosis. There is an article that discusses where current research on the causes of scoliosis stands.

Top Theories for the Etiopathogenisis of Scoliosis, published in The Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, by Wang, Wei Jun, phD, et al, January/February 2011

[sjmcphee]

Hey Fernando, and Josh,
I'm not sure there even is a single guilty component in the spinal column for scoliosis.
The reason why there's curve patterns suggests that it's going wrong in just the way its supposed to go wrong.
So really it's not going wrong at all, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. - Turning your spine into a buckled mess just as it's supposed to.

The link to the research abstract was interesting.
I've always thought that the ribs heads must be responsible for the axial rotation component (shearing force translation relating to vicious cycle of loading) of scoliosis.
I first thought (years ago) that the articular facets were in some way messed up - but I changed my mind because a facet joint dislocation is something that is very painful (apparently) also it would probably be seen in an xray, and in scoliosis the normal working function of flexion /extension is still (somewhat) intact.

Ligaments... The ones that really interest me most of all, (don't know what they are called, it's been years since I looked at any of this stuff) are the ones that run from out on transverse process up about 6 verterbrae to spinious process, then back down the 6 vertebrae to tranverse process again.
If I take what happened to me as an example, I had an injury that misaligned the loading structure of the normal thoracic kyphosis curve in my spine - it created this tiny little concave and convex there, and its from there that my scoliosis started in its altered structural form.
Now at the point where this tiny little concave and convex is formed, T6 has kind of divided top to bottom... (and left to right for that matter) the loading through thoracic.
With an altered amount of axial rotation on vertebra in relation to each other (at the point of this concave and convex T6 and T7) theres now a change in the way the stretch and unstretch of these muscles I mentioned affect the the load on spinious process in a neighbouring region. Because the load in thoracic is divided, it should now be considered 2 regions, And so at the point of T6 the ligaments from transverse process which ascend to spinious at C7 are on a different 'track' than the stretch and unstretch of these ligaments, at the adjacent T7 and the ligaments on spinous process that decend down to the transverse process in the lumbar at L1.

I might have got a couple of things wrong here in relation to exact ascention and decention of ligaments but the concept is what I'm trying to put forward.
It is in actual fact a little bit more complicated than this but it sort of puts across what I'm trying to say.

And this is (in the vicious cycle of loading) how this first small concave and convex leads to the creation of other smaller concaves and convexes at the junctions of the spines natural curves.
(Because the load on them has changed)
And this is how as I tried to show from my weird and strange diagrams a month or so back of how I was able to make sense of the changes that were occuring in my scoliosis.
Its all a matter of complex geometry, but to me its a matter of mathematical certainty that the spine cannot load properly and scoliosis will progress.
I mean in all the years of research has anyone else suggested that the location of an original failure can determine a curve pattern?
And it's pretty damn logical in my opinion.
I worked all this stuff out years ago, pushed it as far as I could on my own, but no-one would listen.

So you see Flerc, what I'm trying to say is nothings wrong and all progression is a result of an original structural failure which changed the normal workings of scoliosis biomechanics.
To find out what actually went wrong, we need to look to the cause of that original failure.

Factors relating to growth are secondary and only complicate things further.

Thanks for adding that abstract Josh,
How can I get access to the full versions of these documents?
It's pretty damn pointless me knowing what I know if I can't even get access to this stuff.
- To know where the researchers themselves are at... and to know what they know.
I'm going to try hard to do a lot this year with both my scoliosis websites and get a basic version of my research ideas up on my scoliosis biomechanics site.
I'm not saying that I'm going to commit to a full effort with my scoliosis research stuff just yet, I'd need the support of others before I even contemplate the idea.
However I am entertaining the idea that at some point I might have to do something about it.
In some ways I have to, I don't really have much of a choice. No-one else is going to work it out.
I could take another 8-9yr break and still nothing would have changed.
I really hope the people on this forum can help me get up to scratch with more scoliosis research info because in many areas I lack knowledge.
It's fair to say I only ever learned the bare minimum of things i needed to - that applied directly to what I was looking at, and even then they were only abstracts.

I know I'm not supposed to entertain the ideas of what Sharon refers to as Folk Science by laypeople such as myself, but I had to respond to the post.

Disclaimer:
This post refers to Scoliosis Research ideas which are untested and unproven.
It's based on my own scoliosis which may be considered slightly different from the norm.
I have no formal scoliosis research qualifications.
These ideas do not take into account genetic aspects of scoliosis.

-Scott

Happy New Year everyone.

[rohrer01]

Scott, I believe that the 2 works (finding the guilty component and Biomechanical analysis) should to be complementaries. Surely a great biomechanical understanding would lead to know which component should to be failing in a greater proportion and knowing that, the loading matter would be more understandably. May be an chicken-egg problem but anyway could be solved.

You mentioned something about ligaments, and yes, it seems to be the answer. Although discs seems to be the cause of scoliosis begining in adulthood, SEAS also point them and it seems to have an stabilizing fuction. In this case, all therapies focused in muscles would be a waste of time.. except muscles would be close in importance to ligaments or therapies improving muscles also improve ligaments. But which ligaments? Dr Kiester said about yellow ligament, in 2 very diferent senses. Even one of them refers to the cause of rigidity (turning into bone ) that is, exactly the opposite to problem of a lack of holding capacity
But this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21989737 talk about transverse ligaments.. I’m not sure about what conclusion may lead in this sense.

Of course generalizations has not sense, but we may say that researchers are good people interested in the true, so surely they will help you in your work.. is a very good news.. I really hope that.

Flerc,
This is a very interesting article, but I really don't see how cutting ribs loose to release the spine from the force exerted on it by the ribs would be useful in living patients. It is a clue to what might be holding a curve, but that makes total sense for a thoracic curve. However, this doesn't explain what holds a lumbar curve. I'm sure, as sure as a layperson can be, that it would be extremely painful to walk around with disarticulated ribs. Have you ever dislocated a joint? It's mighty painful. But then again, the pain could be coming from the stretch on the ligaments. It would seem rather odd, though to disarticulate the rib cage from the spine. You would, in essence, have a floating rib cage. That would not be good for the shoulder girdle. But then again, maybe I misunderstood the article and/or am totally wrong in my understanding of the matter.

[sjmcphee]

Hi Rohrer,
Yep, smart thinking - there aint no ribs in the cervical or lumbar.
I just think that rather than an original failure occuring in say central thoracic, creating a balance S curve pattern, it might start say at the final rib at say the lumbar / thoracic junction.
By doing so, the path in which progression takes is in relation to that original location.
The load on the ribs is still controlling the curve.
The rules are still the same as controlled via the ligaments, but the path is different.
- Scott

[sjmcphee]

In the case of scoliosis many vertebrae exhibit asymmetries in their position. As a result weight is supported unevenly through much of the spine. This uneven distribution of weight can be considered a loading problem. This problem is particularly difficult because, once it begins, it can turn into a vicious cycle.

A-ha! I figured it out... (The Reply To function)
It only took me what 2 months?
Sometimes I am really dumb. lol
I won't even bother trying to deny it
It's not who i am.

I'm just glad no-one drew attention to my dumbness out before I figured it out.

- Thanks for your help Flerc.

Thanks for commenting that earlier explanation Josh

Hey Rohrer - here's something I might add.
In my case when the structural failure occurred it created a small concave and convex in the thoracic region.
What is significant about this is that - the concave - is a derivative of lordosis - there's a lordosis element 'embedded' in thoracic.
For a Lumbar curve I'm saying that if such the same thing occurred further down the spine, it might have created a kyphosis element in lumbar lordosis - maybe?
But this might not necessarily be the case - it might still be a lordosis element in thoracic (ribs) but with a different sequence of activation of muscles and related intervertebral changes (path) to create a different curve pattern.
I've been drinking today (just a couple, slowly) - New Years Day - so I'm not gonna even let myself think that hard about this, it will make my brain sore.

- The curve pattern is the PATH of that moving translation of force within the vicious cycle of loading.

- Scott

[flerc]

I've always thought that the ribs heads must be responsible for the axial rotation component (shearing force translation relating to vicious cycle of loading) of scoliosis.
I first thought (years ago) that the articular facets were in some way messed up - but I changed my mind because a facet joint dislocation is something that is very painful (apparently) also it would probably be seen in an xray, and in scoliosis the normal working function of flexion /extension is still (somewhat) intact.

Scott, I personally know someone having an own (and probably only known by him) method, I'm absolutely sure it's the only one really effective in stopping the progression in the world (he says is only useful before spurt growth) and he said me that what he does is something as release the ribs heads.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[TAMZTOM]

With an altered amount of axial rotation on vertebra in relation to each other (at the point of this concave and convex T6 and T7) theres now a change in the way the stretch and unstretch of these muscles I mentioned affect the the load on spinious process in a neighbouring region.

Yes.

And this is (in the vicious cycle of loading) how this first small concave and convex leads to the creation of other smaller concaves and convexes at the junctions of the spines natural curves. (Because the load on them has changed)

Yes.

Its all a matter of complex geometry, but to me its a matter of mathematical certainty that the spine cannot load properly and scoliosis will progress.

No. If all other factors remain the same, possibly. Asymmetric strengthening, for example, can redress the loading, halt progression below a threshold.

And it's pretty damn logical in my opinion.

Agree

Factors relating to growth are secondary and only complicate things further.

Agree again (proviso for genetics)

get a basic version of my research ideas up on my scoliosis biomechanics site.

Do you have a link for this site?

Folk Science by laypeople such as myself...

Logical thinking is not "folk science". You don't need to be a scientist to think logically. No need to seek the approval of science.

Happy New Year everyone.

And the same to you. :-)

[flerc]

Logical thinking is not "folk science". You don't need to be a scientist to think logically. No need to seek the approval of science.

Of course, nothing is over the logic, science uses it. Right logic conclusions are right conclusion regardless what anyone may say.

[flerc]

at least without taking inot account some capabilities as intuition..

[flerc]

Flerc,
This is a very interesting article, but I really don't see how cutting ribs loose to release the spine from the force exerted on it by the ribs would be useful in living patients. It is a clue to what might be holding a curve, but that makes total sense for a thoracic curve. However, this doesn't explain what holds a lumbar curve. I'm sure, as sure as a layperson can be, that it would be extremely painful to walk around with disarticulated ribs. Have you ever dislocated a joint? It's mighty painful. But then again, the pain could be coming from the stretch on the ligaments. It would seem rather odd, though to disarticulate the rib cage from the spine. You would, in essence, have a floating rib cage. That would not be good for the shoulder girdle. But then again, maybe I misunderstood the article and/or am totally wrong in my understanding of the matter.

Roher, I found that link in the interview done by dingo (#2) http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...formity-System
Yes, is logic to suppose that those ligaments, are contributing to avoid those disastabilizations.. mainly if the study was done in a normal spine.
Recently I found this article http://watkinsspine.com/pubs/5.SternumStability.pdf .. also about thoracic region..
http://watkinsspine.com/pubs/5.SternumStability.pdf

[flerc]

Yes, is logic to suppose that those ligaments, are contributing to avoid those disastabilizations.
http://watkinsspine.com/pubs/5.SternumStability.pdf

It was demostrated that superflexibility is because inmature ligaments, so it seems that rigidity over years is because the maturity of ligaments.. a rigid spine should to be more stable, so 'not rigid' ligaments seems to lead to desestabilization..
but the more superflexible woman (more flexible ligaments) of the world has not scoliosis

[flerc]

Its all a matter of complex geometry, but to me its a matter of mathematical certainty that the spine cannot load properly and scoliosis will progress.

Surely a fact is nothing is done to avoid it. It should to be possible to demonstrate that in a growing line, if it's curve, it tend to continues growing curve and the growth must to be leaded to the zone where forces opposing that growth are lesser and gravity force, not only push down, it also pull toward the convex side.
It's a matter of physics and for humans being it has a translation in Maths.. in this case, geometry and vectors.

But it's not only a mechanichal problem. The body according an own 'reasoning' perform forces such as necessary to maintain always an horizontal vision. Osteopaths knows really too much about that.

And what could happen after growth if all the guilty components would change into super strong and undeformable ones (only allowing normal movements) ? The curve could not never progress. That is what surgeons does with vertebral bodies (but not allowing normal movements)

And what could happen if the perpetual forces would be altered?. Imagine what might happen if instead of walking over the floor, we walk through the roof (with head down). Surely the vicious cycle would be transformed into a virtuous one.
I suppose it should to be something difficult to do .. at least all the time..and we even cannot expect to live in the moon soon, but what if what I said in post #99 is true so someone with a great flexibility keep a vertebral aligment in the inclinated plane when is stand up?. The curve would be reduced while reamins tied to the plane, but if it would be an articulated plane, so all movements would be allowed without loosing the vertebral aligment? And if the part of the plane close to the legs would be cutted? It would be possible to walk with a reduced curve. The rest of the articulated plane could be also cutted exept the part corresponding to the torso, so a normal activities could be done with a reduced curve.

But of course nobody would want to live with an articulated plane in the torso, even it would be very different to a brace in all sense.
But what may happen if tissues are improved in the right way. What if discs (now not suffering high and unequal pressures)
are regenerated, ligaments (maybe using something as prolotherapy) are improved.. the same with muscles, joints, fascias.. ? What would happen when finally the articulated plane would be removed?
SOMEONE IN THE WORLD MAY DEMONSTRATE THAT CURVE COULD NOT REMAINS REDUCED?

[TAMZTOM]

Surely the vicious cycle would be transformed into a virtuous one.

I suggested a possible "virtuous cycle" to another NSF forum member the other day (email). For you geometrically inclined people, I'm deliberating on the following at the moment--you wiser folk may already have reasoned this through?

If curves stretch ligaments, which then can cause rotation, must derotation and curve reduction be concurrent to correct curves? (Until now, I've 'assumed' that derotation must precede curve reduction.)

[TAMZTOM]

Related to the above posts:

"An alternative speculative concept to explain the findings of Lowe et al 164 was formulated as the platelet-skeletal concept.166 This concept describes how a small scoliosis curve transmits the axial loads directly to the vertebral body growth plates in which a micro-insult is created. The insult causes dilatation of juxta-physeal vessels that in turn activate the platelet calmodulin and subsequently growth factors release. The growth factors then abet the hormone-driven growth of the already mechanically compromised vertebral endplates to promote the RASO and the curve progression of AIS."
http://www.fixscoliosis.com/threads/...thic-Scoliosis

[sjmcphee]

I wrote a whole big full page post but it didn't post. Damn it.
So sorry if I seem abrupt in this one.
TAMZTOM QUOTE>>No. If all other factors remain the same, possibly. Asymmetric strengthening, for example, can redress the loading, halt progression below a threshold.<<
- I was speaking reagarding my own experience which; just quickly I'm not sure any amount of strength training will have any effect on my curve.
In the bigger picture I do believe you are correct.
If I was to speculate, I'd say things like body shape, weight, leanness and leanness of muscles might affect this, as well as the types of exercises too I suppose.
I don't currently have a link to my research - its all up here. (points to head) But I do have a site scoliosisbiomechanics.com which I can use for it.
The infos all stuffed in the back of my brain somewhere - people just ask questions and it promotes some area of thinking in my brain and the info just comes out - and I bareley even remember it's stored there...
I'll give an example is a second...
It's kind of sad that I had a good understanding of all this stuff way back prior to 2000 and its sat dormant uninvestigated and wasted for so long.
It is unreasonable to say that a patient might know more than a researcher or specialist in their field.
I strongly agree with pooka on this, although I may be the exception to the rule.
Not sure if posting my knowledge on my site is the best course of action, because doing so will allow private companies to create patents (90milion a year bracing was it + possible improvements to instrumentation) based on my knowledge and we'll all end up paying top dollar for something that we had a hand in developing ourselves. I'd rather see my scoliosis sites or the NSF for example own a piece of these patents so we have a hand in controlling our future.
But my scoliosisnetwork sites main goal isn't research money - its improving the quality of the internet. Maybe someway down the line.

TAMZTOM QUOTE>>If curves stretch ligaments, which then can cause rotation, must derotation and curve reduction be concurrent to correct curves? (Until now, I've 'assumed' that derotation must precede curve reduction.)<<

You've got this messed up somehow... your making me think... you need to define whether axial rotation or spinal rotation...its not the curves that stretch the ligaments initially its the bad loading... But this stretching is more of a pulling effect of yanking on the end of a couple of ropes adjusting the load from region to region. Within this loading - one component is axial rotation, compression/tension, shear are others. The curve is the result of this underlying vicious cycle of translation of load from region to region.
After spinal rotation though (the one I think you're talking about) more serious stretching of these ligaments might occur
Im not sure how derotation works in a surgical sense, but in a biomechanical sense its really tricky to explain.

Your Question: Concurrent (had to look that word up lol) instead of Precede - YES -
You see Spinal Rotation is a secondary component and a derivative of axial rotation; and axial rotation is the primary component which works in conjunction with compression/tension and the shearing force translations that are messed up and hold the load (curve)on the ribs from region to region.
And without going to far into it you need to fix the axial rotation part of the loading problem in order to fix the spinal rotation part non surgically.
You can't really attack spinal rotation in its own right except surgically because its not a primary component.
But that being said the amount of individial shearing force translations and associated changes in axial rotation related to the vicious cycle of loading are so numerous (thousands/millions of translations) within the bigger picture of the vicious cycle of loading that one individual translation and associated instance of axial rotation would not even be enough to see any change in the degree of curvature.
As this moving translation moves in its individual path for its curve pattern (which is difficult to even describe as a 'path' since the 'path' itself changes in relation to the loading on itself, but it's still a path as such) - it's more like 'cycles' of loading through this path that would more likely to be even enough to even calculate a minor change in curvature, in the overall bigger picture.

See, I don't know where its stored or how I know it lol - my brain just spits it out
You should have seen the other post - that one that never was... It was heaps better lol

-Scott