Martha Hawes improves her scoliosis w exercise

[TAMZTOM]

...In the bigger picture I do believe you are correct.

I thought so.

It is unreasonable to say that a patient might know more than a researcher or specialist in their field.

K Schroth and Martha Hawes might disagree. We must define "their field". The field is fixing curves in particular people; many factors contribute. It is fatuous to emphasise that scientists, experts and researchers have more scientific, expert or research knowledge. 'Application to the individual', ponder this. ALL FIELDS have their dimwits, pea-brains ad eedjits; all fields have their rational quota (much like society and online forums, actually). I learn from the scientists, researchers and experts and online forum posters worth their salt.

I strongly agree with pooka on this, although I may be the exception to the rule.

Pooka reasons constructively so I value her posts. You miss the point of my last post and unnecessarily--almost provocatively--try to drag Pooka into some polemic. I learn from science, researchers and experts, good ones. There's one hell of a lot of bad science, research and 'expert advice' out there. I agree with Pooka's revulsion for crap.

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...its not the curves that stretch the ligaments initially its the bad loading... After spinal rotation though (the one I think you're talking about) more serious stretching of these ligaments might occur...

It's often wise to think before you type, helps avoid contradiction.

You see Spinal Rotation is a secondary component and a derivative of axial rotation.

Arguendo, I can agree with that...

...you need to fix the axial rotation part of the loading problem in order to fix the spinal rotation part non surgically.

Dangerous, irrational nonsense.

[rohrer01]

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

Well the concavity of a curve is, as we all know, the inside of the curve and the convexity the outside. I'm not quite following your thinking on calling a concavity a type of lordosis, since lordosis of the spine runs anterior/posterior in the 3D world. Yes, lordosis is a concavity but not the other way around. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. But going with your line of thinking, people with T-curves often have hypokyphosis or even lordosis in rare cases in the upper spine. That's about as far as I can follow. Maybe you can lead my nose in the direction you are thinking more clearly, as I'm not quite following you.

[sjmcphee]

Hi TAMZTOM,
Thanks for your comments.
I'm not offended at all that you disagree with my statements.
In fact, I'm grateful that someones listening and is taking the time to pick it apart.
It's a good test. I expect the scoliosis researchers will be much more ruthless if it ever gets that far.
Firstly I'm curious as to whether you misunderstand exactly what I mean, or just plain disagree with me.
Which is ok, because in either instance I will learn something.
-Scott

I think I'm going to have to use diagrams to explain what I mean.

[sjmcphee]

Hi Rohrer,

Well the concavity of a curve is, as we all know, the inside of the curve and the convexity the outside. I'm not quite following your thinking on calling a concavity a type of lordosis, since lordosis of the spine runs anterior/posterior in the 3D world. Yes, lordosis is a concavity but not the other way around. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. But going with your line of thinking, people with T-curves often have hypokyphosis or even lordosis in rare cases in the upper spine. That's about as far as I can follow. Maybe you can lead my nose in the direction you are thinking more clearly, as I'm not quite following you.

Sometimes my stuff doesn't make sense, and I can't always explain why I think something I do... because I can't always remember every thought process I made and why I came to the conclusion I did so long ago.
Even worse, sometimes I do remember exactly but I don't have a hope in hell of explaining it in words. That one really sucks.
I hate second guessing myself, I like to think that for the most part, I did understand it properly the first time and that I had reasons to think a certain way.
But that doesn't mean I'm not open minded enough to look at something again if I feel there really is a need to.
I know it doesn't help much, but in any case, I have to remember so I have to go over it again.

In relation to the original concave and convex that was created...

I'm thinking that the reason why I must associate the concave as being lordosis and the concave being kyphosis, must be in relation to the way in which it was created, and the path in which it progresses.
Yes I know that this concave and convex is not a direct anterior / posterior problem alone, that it has lateral elements so I understand how in theory you might think that I shouldn't attribute these terms to it.
I understand these lateral elements and have accounted for them in my geomety based understanding.
I'm using these terms much in the same way I said spinal rotation is a derivative of axial rotation.
- That the concave is a derivative of lordosis
- And the convex is a derivative of kyphosis.
Ultimately from this smaller concave and convex - a much larger concave is created in upper thoracic and cervical regions and a much bigger convex is created in thoracic and lumbar - for my thoracolumbar curve.
As scoliosis progresses from the original concave and convex affected area it radiates out and more concaves and convexes are created at the junctions of the spines natural curves (more give and take happening)
When it does so moving up the spine its as if an aspect of the natural kyphosis curve is now being pulled ito cervical - its as if the midline tries to pull to the side of the concave in upper thoracic and create the larger concave.
I know that doesn't help much either.
I can't really fully explain it why because to do so would require the absolute full complexity of everything I am saying and it needs to be proven geometrically - it's just too big.
Everything I've ever done is based on geometry, curves and vectors. That is the whole real basis of my work, not words or explanations, how I made sense of it.
I need to put it back together in the same way, and it's too big for the mind to do on its own. I need a model. It's simply too complex.
And without being able to quantify the loading of the curve pattern at a given point in time like I used to be able to do I have to rely on memory.
I swear I'm not a liar, all of this stuff did happen, it's very complicated stuff, and I had no real easy way to explain, or record it, and I really am doing my best to try and explain.
Probably the most important aspect of my research is those vector sets I showed months ago.
- But even those I can't easily explain in words what is meant by them.
Honestly, Rohrer its about here without diagrams that it all does get really too complicated.
Soon I'll be rambling utter crap that wont make sense to anyone, and I might almost be there already.
Please understand this is something which cannot be explained easily.
Please don't be too hard on me everyone.
-Scott

[rohrer01]

Scott,
I aplogize if I came across too harsh. I do understand that mathematical models are very hard to express in words. I was a math minor in college. I took vector calculus and geometry and such, so it is hard to express in words but not so hard in pictures. The bad part about that is in mathematics, one also has to learn to express in words what they are saying in diagram, at least at the university I went to. But "I think" I am starting to understand what you were trying to get across.

[sjmcphee]

Hi Rohrer,
Thanks for the kind words. I never even went to college.
I finished grade 10 in high school and that was that. (I did however do quite well in maths without trying - I was placed in an advanced maths class, but was pulled out because I mucked around too much and really wasn't interested. I guess they decided to give the place to a student that did apply themselves. )
I went straight into cheap paying jobs, my first collecting trolleys, my second grinding welds on aluminium gates and my third at a powder coating factory.
Crap jobs, and I got treated like crap too.

I saw TAMZTOM's comment as a bit of a challenge, to see if I can explain what I mean, so I started doing a quick microsoft course last night to learn how to create powerpoint presentations.
Something I always wanted to know how to do anyway.
Being that you can click from one frame to the next, it kind of almost works like animation and I was thinking about how I can use this + images to better try and show what happened to me and my ideas.
I like that you have some knowledge of geometry, I'd like to create a presentation to share with just a couple of people first and get some feedback.
I don't want this presentation to be a full public version of my work - just an initial working copy.
- I don't want bodgey versions of my ideas getting around or they will come back to bite me on the bum later.

I have been putting working on my websites to the side over the last week or so for the sake of enjoying discussions on this forum.
Its really too hard for me to strain my brain with both scoliosis research ideas and web design thoughts at the same time.
I need to get back to my websites, however I don't want to be seen to shy away from what TAMZTOM said just because it gets hard.
So I will be making an effort on the side to put together a private presentation that provides a lot more info, and we will go again from there.

I caught up with a aquaintance yesterday who is extrememly good with computer coding etc.
He's so good with code, that he could make your toilet flush remotely with an iphone whilst in a different country.
And he is going to help me with my sites, and this is a good thing because for the type of help I need he could do it in his sleep.

This scoliosis research really is the most complicated stuff.
And as much as I will look foolish at times you guys should give me just a tiny bit of credit for having a crack at that which even the scoliosis researchers are scared of.

- Even though I could see how it started and what was going on it took me well over a year to make sense of it, and I could never explain it as well as I need to.
Even when I did grasp it, every new day brought new learning.
It really is the most complicated work of engineering that I have ever come across in my life hands down.
This is the reason why I chose to shy away from it for the last 8yrs.

- Scott

[sjmcphee]

Hi TAMZTOM,
When I'm talking about axial rotation, I'm not saying that verterbra are spinning around and around.
What I'm saying is that they are rotating left and right (not around and around but more say back and forth) slightly in conjunction with the shearing force and compression to move the load and the shearing force translation up and down the spine with give and take going from region to region in a kind of path.
It's really hard to explain.
- Scott

[rohrer01]

Hi TAMZTOM,
When I'm talking about axial rotation, I'm not saying that verterbra are spinning around and around.
What I'm saying is that they are rotating left and right (not around and around but more say back and forth) slightly in conjunction with the shearing force and compression to move the load and the shearing force translation up and down the spine with give and take going from region to region in a kind of path.
It's really hard to explain.
- Scott

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that throughout normal daily activities, the vertebrae are allowed to move side to side in an unnatural way? Side to side movement would not be a rotation (as a rotation around a single axis would NOT change the load on the vertebrae) but a shift, and I'm "assuming" that's what you mean. There has to be some kind of laxity for this to occur (probably overly stretchy ligaments or loose ligaments). As this happens, the load on the vertebrae shifts making an uneven load and causing abnormal wear and tear on the vertebrae. As this happens, perhaps one sideshift becomes more prevalent or favored (either to the left or to the right). As this happens, even on a minute scale, the birth of a curve developes and the vicious cycle of progression begins. Is this what you are trying to say?

[TAMZTOM]

It's really hard to explain. - Scott

The below linked article may assist, Scott.
http://www.scoliosisjournal.com/cont...-7161-5-27.pdf
"In the presence of a lateral deviation, and/or axial rotation, combined with an asymmetrical shortening of the dorsal elastic structures, any flexion effort is converted into a lordotic force. Due to reflex mechanisms, flexion movements of the spine provoke tension on the dorsal elastic structures, which produce a reactive asymmetrical concentric force, increasing lordosis, and secondarily, axial rotation and lateral deviation as well."

I think you missed my point in the earlier post: to paraphrase, curves stretch ligaments and cause rotation, therefore lateral correction AND derotation are required to fix.

[rohrer01]

I probably did miss your point. I was tryint to make heads or tails of what Scott was saying, so I interpreted it to the best of my ability. What I wrote in the previous post sounds most similar to the subheading "gravitational effects" found on page three, column two. So in a nutshell, I think this paper will help Scott to be able to sort out his many thoughts that he says randomly pop up in his brain. Thanks for the link. Now I think I understand where this conversation was trying to go. It just made no sense to me as there seemed to be a lot of talking in circles and contradictions. I'm not putting anyone down, this is what happens during the thought process and have found myself doing the same thing. That is why it is so very important to take a multidirectional approach to solving this problem.

[TAMZTOM]

Thanks for the link.

Hi Rohrer. Hope you're doing well.
We have an orthotist meeting in England on Friday, made me remember that paper as I'm focused on having Tamzin's brace adjusted and wanted to get my geometry down pat.

[sjmcphee]

Hi Rohrer and TAMZTOM,
No not side to side, I think you had me right the first time Rohrer,
Yes Rotate but not around and around that would be impossible lol
Its more like agaitating on top of each other, and with the load transferring from region to region (2 regions for thoracic - its been divided - please don't ask me to explain this... right now anyway)
Look Image Link
And I know its a terrible picture (I'm not even sure if it shows what im trying to show very good), and I know your saying well that's not possible either,
- but it kind of is possible only it's probably heaps more trickier than whatever you might think I'm trying to say.
In order for any of it to make any sense at all, I have to show you more, a lot more.
It always does get difficult to try and convey 3d ideas....
*It's a link to an image please dont delete the post...

TAMZTOM, you're probably right, it's probably me that explains things wrong - I'm the one with no academic qualifications.
I'm not totally sure I understand what you mean, but I will look at the article more in depth when I have more time.

- Scott

[Alistair]

I genuinely don't understand where this thread is going, can't make head or tail of the latest posts, bottom line is Schroth doesn't work, SEAS don't work, I'm not an authority on scoliosis and would like to know who are these newcomers who claim to be researching ways to correct a deformed spine, if that's not too much to ask.

[Kevin_Mc]

This scoliosis research really is the most complicated stuff.
And as much as I will look foolish at times you guys should give me just a tiny bit of credit for having a crack at that which even the scoliosis researchers are scared of.

It's the comments like this that bother me the most. You haven't even read the current studies to know what the scoliosis researchers are or are not doing. Particularly as it relates to biomechanics. If you want to claim you know what you're talking about, that's fine; and even post pictures to try and explain what you're saying, that's more than fine. That's encouraged even. You've clearly thought about it a lot and you might have some interesting thoughts. But you should really refrain from trash talking. If you want respect, you need to give respect.

The below linked article may assist, Scott.
http://www.scoliosisjournal.com/cont...-7161-5-27.pdf
"In the presence of a lateral deviation, and/or axial rotation, combined with an asymmetrical shortening of the dorsal elastic structures, any flexion effort is converted into a lordotic force. Due to reflex mechanisms, flexion movements of the spine provoke tension on the dorsal elastic structures, which produce a reactive asymmetrical concentric force, increasing lordosis, and secondarily, axial rotation and lateral deviation as well."

I think you missed my point in the earlier post: to paraphrase, curves stretch ligaments and cause rotation, therefore lateral correction AND derotation are required to fix.

That's a nice review/editorial. I like the idea that there is a concentrated effort to establish standards for exercise based articles. That's also a nice description of how tight posterior/dorsal structures can contribute to the deformity. The flexion force/effort is the most interesting. I'm wondering if they would say to avoid forward flexion.?.

[TAMZTOM]

That's also a nice description of how tight posterior/dorsal structures can contribute to the deformity. The flexion force/effort is the most interesting. I'm wondering if they would say to avoid forward flexion.?.

The implication is unavoidable and comports with Schroth restriction on movement. Is maximising ROM desirable, if the trade-off is increasing force on the curves? Forward flexion makes me wince; even at medical appointments, I don't permit my daughter to do the Adams bending test. Why maximise the distorting torque when there's evidence of rotation even while standing.

QUESTION:

• concave side ligaments must be stretched and misaligned on thoracic curves;
• increasing ROM, without simultaneously applying corrective lateral force, would result in those ligaments being permanently realigned in the overstretched position;
• would this make it much more difficult to correct thoracic curves, or put differently, make stabilization the goal?