Side Planks

[Alistair]

i really hope the info on "side planks" for scoli does not hit
a major newspaper...

It already did, the Wall Street Journal tweeted it and publishded the side plank article, that's probably how it went viral-ish. My problem is not much how seriously people will take scoliosis but giving false hopes, that really enrages me. So little is still known about scoliosis that any Tom Dick or Harry can come up with their "solution" without fear of being named and shamed, it's laughable.

[flerc]

This idea that anterior overgrowth of bone is due to soft tissue incompetence doesn't seem as plausible to me as the idea of some growth abnormality in either the discs, vertebra, or both in AIS.

If incompetent soft tissue was the cause then why do AIS curves tend to get bigger when the bones are growing incorrectly instead of correctly? Why would soft tissue suddenly become incompetent in the adolescent years even in athletes? The fact that athletes still see their curves worsen in the growth spurt points to a genetically directed vertebra growth anomaly in my opinion.

Even if it is a bone/disc growth abnormality, PT hypothetically might be able to redirect growth but there is very little evidence so far for that. It is hard to overcome bone growth with PT it seems.

As I known the only one known as a fact is the abnormal growth of bones because the curve, leading to the known as scoliosis vicious cycle. I think the first event triggering the begining of the curve may be different in each IS case. But when the curve started, the outcome of forces, gravity downwards and growth force upwards lead to an increase of the curve, surely greater when weaker are the soft tissues and of course if some tissue is tense or short not allowing the spine going upwards, the curve will increase too much.

During growth seems logical to think that if flexibility is enough in order to be sure that nothing is blocking the upward growth and something is done (as bracing) in order to redirect the growth, then curve should to decrease. But if anyway tissues are weak or deformed, the curve surely will increase, because the gravity force would not find enough resistance. So althought affter growth there is only the gravity force and the body is just only in a remodeling process, to know which tissue is not allowing the spine to resist the gravity force is something important not only in adults but also in teens. Someone says are bones, other says ligaments, other fascias, joints.. since science is in diapers, only trial and error as this MD did and specific experiments, may say it.

[Pooka1]

Emphasis added

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16133084

Eur Spine J. 2005 Nov;14(9):862-73. Epub 2005 Aug 26.
Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis--result of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth? Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE.
Guo X1, Chau WW, Chan YL, Cheng JC, Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH.
Author information
Abstract

There is no generally accepted scientific theory for the etiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). As part of its mission to widen understanding of scoliosis etiology, the International Federated Body on Scoliosis Etiology (IBSE) introduced the electronic focus group (EFG) as a means of increasing debate on knowledge of important topics. This has been designated as an on-line Delphi discussion. The text for this EFG was written by Professor Jack Cheng and his colleagues who used whole spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to re-investigate the relative anterior spinal overgrowth of progressive AIS in a cross-sectional study. The text is drawn from research carried out with his co-workers including measurement of the height of vertebral components anteriorly (vertebral body) and posteriorly (pedicles) in girls with AIS and in normal subjects. The findings confirm previous anatomical studies and support the consensus view that in patients with thoracic AIS there is relatively faster growth of anterior and slower growth of posterior elements of thoracic vertebrae. The disproportionate anteroposterior vertebral size is associated with severity of the scoliotic curves. In interpreting the findings they consider the Roth/Porter hypothesis of uncoupled neuro-osseous growth in the spine but point out that knowledge of normal vertebral growth supports the view that the scoliosis deformity in AIS is related to longitudinal vertebral body growth rather than growth of the canal. In the mechanical mechanism (pathomechanism) they implicitly adopt the concept of primary skeletal change as it affects the sagittal plane of the spine with anterior increments and posterior decrements of vertebral growth and, in the biological mechanism (pathogenesis) propose a novel histogenetic hypothesis of uncoupled endochondral-membranous bone formation. The latter is viewed as part of an 'intrinsic abnormality of skeletal growth in patients with AIS which may be genetic'. The hypothesis that AIS girls have intrinsic anomalies (not abnormalities) of skeletal growth related to curve progression and involving genetic and/or environmental factors acting in early life is not original. While the findings of Professor Cheng and his colleagues have added MRI data to the field of relative anterior spinal overgrowth in AIS their interpretation engenders controversy. Three new hypotheses are proposed to interpret their findings: (1) hypoplasia of articular processes as a risk factor for AIS; (2) selection from the normal population to AIS involves anomalous vertebral morphology and soft tissue factors--this hypothesis may also apply to certain types of secondary scoliosis; and (3) a new method to predict the natural history of AIS curves by evaluating cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) motion at the cranio-cervical junction. What is not controversial is the need for whole spine MRI research on subjects with non-idiopathic scoliosis.

-------------

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Sep;85(7):1026-31.
Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth.
Guo X1, Chau WW, Chan YL, Cheng JC.
Author information
Abstract

We undertook a comparative study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) vertebral morphometry of thoracic vertebrae of girls with adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis (AIS) and age and gender-matched normal subjects, in order to investigate abnormal differential growth of the anterior and posterior elements of the thoracic vertebrae in patients with scoliosis. Previous studies have suggested that disproportionate growth of the anterior and posterior columns may contribute to the development of AIS. Whole spine MRI was undertaken on 83 girls with AIS between the age of 12 and 14 years, and Cobb's angles of between 20 degrees and 90 degrees, and 22 age-matched controls. Multiple measurements of each thoracic vertebra were obtained from the best sagittal and axial MRI cuts. Compared with the controls, the scoliotic spines had longer vertebral bodies between T1 and T12 in the anterior column and shorter pedicles with a larger interpedicular distance in the posterior column. The differential growth between the anterior and the posterior elements of each thoracic vertebra in the patients with AIS was significantly different from that in the controls (p < 0.01). There was also a significant positive correlation between the scoliosis severity score and the ratio of differential growth between the anterior and posterior columns for each thoracic vertebra (p < 0.01). Compared with age-matched controls, the longitudinal growth of the vertebral bodies in patients with AIS is disproportionate and faster and mainly occurs by endochondral ossification. In contrast, the circumferential growth by membranous ossification is slower in both the vertebral bodies and pedicles.

http://boneandjoint.org.uk/highwire/....full-text.pdf

-----------------------

[jrnyc]

hi Alistair
you are right, of course, about the false hope thing...
i forgot about that part of it....
when i had Lyme Disease ,before it was better known as it
is now (though the ignorance about length of tx has created
a tremendous controversy about Lyme)
i learned about false hope with a trip to Mexico for a bogus
"cure" recommended by one of top Lyme doctors at the time...
we all learned, including that doctor, that it was bogus...some
of us, the patients, learned it the hard way...

also years ago, an ignorant idiot doctor at "the great" Mt Sinai
Hospital in Manhattan gave us false hope about my mother's
brain tumor...

so i personally take the other extreme now...zero hope..
i am not pushing that on anyone...that is just my own
view point after going thru above mentioned stuff...and more...
not saying it is better than false hope...but to me, it is better....

such a shame that anyone can make scoli sound so easily
fixed....would that it were true...
just knowing how many patients suffer thru surgery should
tell people how serious it is...
i fear the entire plank thing will have people believing "it can be
reversed with exercise, so stop complaining"

jess...and Sparky

[flerc]

Emphasis added

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16133084



-------------



http://boneandjoint.org.uk/highwire/....full-text.pdf

-----------------------

Interesting! If we assume is a causal correlation then at least thoracic curves should not be called idiopathic.. this bone problem would be the cause. I remember I have also read an article concluding about a soft dystonia in every scoliosis case of any type, so a neuromuscular problem would be the cause.
Anyway to know which is the first cause could be useful for kids/teens but difficult to believe the same for adults. The damage is done, the primary cause present in the development of the curve may not be present any more. The gene leading to an abnormal bone growth is not affecting any more the now finished growth, the neuromuscular spasms twisting the spine while it grows may not exists any more, but the curve is already done anyway. So we may say that primary causes are only historical causes in adulthood and of course we are only interested in current causes, that is the conditions allowing or provoking NOW the problem, that is the curve, which could not exist in a flexible spine if tissues could resist the gravity force.

We may believe that the tissue affected during growth is the current culprit in an adult, but who knows. If certainly was a matter of bone growth, probably giving to that bones the normal shape would not reverse the curve, because surely other tissues finished in an abnormal state (shape, lenght, resistance, consistence..) after growth.
But probably improving very much some of this tissues the curve may be reversed significantly or the spine may be enough strong in order to resist the gravity force although having a big curve.
In some sense is what fusion although in a surgical way does. It get super strong undeformable discs

[flerc]

The degenerative cases are different for known reasons... they aren't fighting bone shape in that case.

An anterior overgrowth may be not the first cause of the curve for them, but since bone remodeling in adults is seeing as a fact, they also should to be fighting against vertebral wedge, which is considered the cause of the scoliosis vicious cycle.
I suppose that wedge in that old adult (how many years should to elapse in order to get such giant curve?) should to be really important, so if it side plank really provoked such fantastic reduction in those degenerative cases (assuming were not IS), is logic to suppose it could be really possible to get a significant reduction in a young adult with IS and a big but not giant curve.

[Alistair]

I suppose that wedge in that old adult (how many years should to elapse in order to get such giant curve?) should to be really important, so if it side plank really provoked such fantastic reduction in those degenerative cases (assuming were not IS), is logic to suppose it could be really possible to get a significant reduction in a young adult with IS and a big but not giant curve.

Reading the last few posts I must admit I don't know anything about bone anomalies causing my scoliosis, it was never reported on my medical reports and no specialist ever told me about this so I'm not familiar with what you guys have been talking about. Basically if I got it right you are saying that, despite the study mentioning adolescent and older patients, those who (allegedly) got their curve reduction were of two categories: adolescents with IS, and adults with degenerative. This is because in adults with idiopatic there is no way mere physical exercise would be able to fight against curvature AND bone deformity even if bone anomalies are not present anymore in adulthood, is that what you're saying?
I'm now definitely convinced this study was kept on the vague side on purpose, the fact they can't answer to these and other questions as it's a low-budget study is no excuse, or, depending who's side one is, is a great excuse.

[flerc]

Hi Alistair, certainly I don't understand why could be so important the purpose of this MD, what he really knows about scoliosis and so on. As you said, of course money drives this world and certainly all around medicine is the greatest business of all the times.. have you some idea about how much money implies hospitals, physicians, laboratories, medical devices.. just only back surgeries in USA moves many billons dollars per year! So I don't see nothing wrong if he wants (as everyone) to get money for what he does.. and in fact if we want, we can suspect about every professional geting money for scoliosis work. And certainly, in order to does this trial and error study, no so much scoliosis understanding may be needed and anyway surgeons don't knows enough about what could happens with some specific exercises.. also not physistrists..nobody knows.. and this is far to be the first scoliosis study with incomplete information I see. Fortunately someone is interested in doing such kind of experiments.. is unforgivable for me how nobody used mri in order to know what tissues are affected in adults having some reduction using the Spinecor. So I think we must to congratulates this MD instead of criticize him.

About what you were asking for, the article Pooka1 posted leads to think that the initial cause of scoliosis is a bone growth problem. The development of the curve may be seen as a casual chain, regardless which was the first event, when the curve is initiated (may be because a bone anterior overgrowth, a soft dystonia..), an structural mechanic problem begin, increasing the curve. Researchers talks about the scoliosis vicious cycle focusing only (I believe ther is a more important factor) in the fact that curve provokes impair pressures in both side of the vertebra and because the von Hueter law, the vertebral wedge is formed. So IS vertebras are deformed after growth in IS cases, while in degenerative ones, the curve is initiated in adulthood, so anterior overgrowth should not be present and the VH law has nothing to do because it’s only during growth, but the Wolff law implies a bone remodeling through all the life, and researches recently concludes (as I understand) that the same vertebral wedge would be increase during adulthood because the curve.. something as the same vicious cycle. So in degenerative cases after some years we also should to find vertebral deforming and what may be worse than wedge!
Assuming as a fact all the previous, the conclusion is that if certainly the adults in that study had so incredible reduction (the point we need to be sure about it), then side plank may get significant reductions in IS adults with kind of curve present in that study.
You seems to have a double curve and is not clear what could happens in this case, but certainly I think your curve is too much mild to be worry about scoliosis. Regards

[Pooka1]

Reading the last few posts I must admit I don't know anything about bone anomalies causing my scoliosis, it was never reported on my medical reports and no specialist ever told me about this so I'm not familiar with what you guys have been talking about.

If you were told you have idiopathic scoliosis then that implies you have a rotation. That rotation is driven by anterior overgrowth as far as I know.

Basically if I got it right you are saying that, despite the study mentioning adolescent and older patients, those who (allegedly) got their curve reduction were of two categories: adolescents with IS, and adults with degenerative. This is because in adults with idiopathic there is no way mere physical exercise would be able to fight against curvature AND bone deformity even if bone anomalies are not present anymore in adulthood, is that what you're saying?
I'm now definitely convinced this study was kept on the vague side on purpose, the fact they can't answer to these and other questions as it's a low-budget study is no excuse, or, depending who's side one is, is a great excuse.

I don't think the adults were clearly and correctly sorted into degenerative versus IS. What confuses me about the study is that the smaller curves were the ones that were labelled AIS but I thought degenerative curves were generally smaller than AIS curves in adults. I think some of the larger curves in adults may have been labeled degenerative and were in fact AIS. I can't figure out from the paper how they classified the patients and if it was done correctly. And the issue with not differentiating between structural and compensatory secondary curves sinks the paper in my opinion if that is the case.

In re money as a motivation, I don't think that is the case here because yoga is out there. I think these guys are motivated by the chance to solve scoliosis. But they need to collaborate with an orthopedic surgeon going forward. They are rehab and pain doctors so the fact that the article is not clear can be expected.

[jrnyc]

i'm sorry....am i missing something here....?
seriously...
we are to believe that there is an exercise for a "few minutes a day" that could
reduce scoli curve BY 50%....??? (did i read that right....??)
by 50% or 50% of the people who did the exercise....?

'cause i swear i read that it could reduce curves 50%....
if that were REALLY TRUE, RELIABLE, REPLICATED, and people were SHOWN
in before and after pix, followed as their curves reduced....someone would surely SHOUT it out from roof tops...no? Let's SEE the PROOF, folks.

seriously, that would mean that a 50 degree curve would be reduced to 25 degrees....that would be a BIG DEAL....because a 90 degree curve could become 45 degrees...and maybe not need surgery....

there is only one reason, i think, that this is NOT being shouted
from any roof top....or being demonstrated with time lapse photos or some kind of video...
it ain't true, it doesn't work, it is but wishful thinking...
and a way to try to promote yoga...

that is my private opinion....
BUT....i am still shocked that anyone discusses this as if it were
serious.

jess...and Sparky

[Pooka1]

Jess I don't disagree with anything you say.

My question is about pain in the degerative cases. It is my understanding those curses are usually smaller than AIS and very painful. I would like to know if the degeneration cases who reduced their curves so much also decreased their pain.

The other thing is the corrections were lost if they stopped the yoga. That implies to me that they are recruiting muscles that are not normally used to stand straighter. Spinecor already established that you can get at least an 11 degree correction just standing differently. That also suggests it might not stop progression.

[jrnyc]

well, i am not so sure keeping "planks" thread going is a help...
and 11 degrees is lovely.....but not the same as 50% of a curve...
cause then i wanna do "planks" and have my 70 degree curve
go down to 35 degrees!!

but did you write "curses" instead of "curves".......????

hmmmmm.....
Freudian slip there....?

WOOF

[Alistair]

i'm sorry....am i missing something here....?
seriously...
we are to believe that there is an exercise for a "few minutes a day" that could
reduce scoli curve BY 50%....??? (did i read that right....??)
by 50% or 50% of the people who did the exercise....?

'cause i swear i read that it could reduce curves 50%....
if that were REALLY TRUE, RELIABLE, REPLICATED, and people were SHOWN
in before and after pix, followed as their curves reduced....someone would surely SHOUT it out from roof tops...no? Let's SEE the PROOF, folks.

seriously, that would mean that a 50 degree curve would be reduced to 25 degrees....that would be a BIG DEAL....because a 90 degree curve could become 45 degrees...and maybe not need surgery....

there is only one reason, i think, that this is NOT being shouted
from any roof top....or being demonstrated with time lapse photos or some kind of video...
it ain't true, it doesn't work, it is but wishful thinking...
and a way to try to promote yoga...

that is my private opinion....
BUT....i am still shocked that anyone discusses this as if it were
serious.

jess...and Sparky

I agree with any of your statements except maybe I'm not shocked this is being discussed because, as sad and gullible this makes us, some may need something to cling to, also discussing this, or better, discrediting this, will help future people who will Google "yoga+scoliosis" and find that lovely article claiming 50% (yes you read that right) reductions. In fact except that debunking article I posted a while ago (and even there they claimed that doing the pose on the other side, concave, might actually work) there are no other places where this study is criticised as far as I know, so maybe we're doing the right thing keeping this thread alive, or maybe I'm just talking rubbish..;p
I just wonder how they did it, I mean get away with these low budget low participants studies, laws should be enforced to prevent publishing studies unless someone can really shout their findings from the rooftops because it actually works.

[flerc]

Is there no way to know if a study like this is absolutly true or a deliberated fraude? There's no place here to grey zones. They are talking about objective measurements (with enormous differences), not simple conclusions about what could happen or not.
If it's a perfect fraude, is something so simple to do? Why I should to think that? Because I thought as impossible to get a very much significant reduction in a giant curve? What the hell I know in order to be important what I believe or not? WHAT THE HELL KNOWS SOMEONE? If someone really have enough knowledge, tell me please, we have a lot to talk.. I have a lot of questions to do.

[Pooka1]

well, i am not so sure keeping "planks" thread going is a help...
and 11 degrees is lovely.....but not the same as 50% of a curve...
cause then i wanna do "planks" and have my 70 degree curve
go down to 35 degrees!!

but did you write "curses" instead of "curves".......????

hmmmmm.....
Freudian slip there....?

WOOF

Typo. Wow.

Maybe if they tried they could get an even bigger reduction with just standing differently. But you are right that 11* is not going to move the needle unless you are starting with a 22* curve. Then it's a 50% reduction! The 6* curve that was reduced to 3* (50%) in the plank paper was used in the overall average reduction. Lol.