weights #2387
The Weights Mailing List
SPINAL TERMINOLOGY
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: PLATOONS OF SCIENTISTS
by Arnab Ghosh <phu...@mindless.com>
Re: Very persistent pec tear/tendinitis
by Arthur Schloth <sch...@ICD.Teradyne.COM>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: SPINAL TERMINOLOGY
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:40:51 -0700
On 7/23/00, Simon Little<Sim...@torson.com> wrote:
<<
there appears to be a somewhat inconsistent use of the terms Lordosis and
Kyphosis to describe spinal curvature. My understanding of ideal/normal
segmental alignment of the spine is: cervical spine slightly convex
anteriorly, thoracic spine slightly convex
posteriorly, and the lumbar spine slightly convex anteriorly. Lordosis and
kyphosis by their very name(-osis: forming, denoting process or condition
esp. pathological state(5)) seem to refer to pathological conditions of the
cervical/Lumbar and thoracic spine respectively. Lordosis and kyphosis are
often defined as pathological, accentuated and/or poor postures (3,4) yet
some very detailed texts refer to normal lumbar curvature as "the lumbar
lordosis" (1), "lordotic" (6) or an "increased lordosis" (to describe an
increase in the convex cervical/lumbar curve anteriorly)(2). Is this an
increase in a "normal" curve or and increase in an already pathological
spine? Have I misinterpreted the use of these terms or are they being used
interchangeably as descriptors of normal spinal curvature? If so, why are
such highly respected texts perpetuating the inappropriate use of such
terminology?
>>
***Your interpretation of the terminology is perfectly correct. Those
texts which use lordosis and kyphosis as terms for the "normal" curvatures
of the spine are incorrect and are being used casually without regard to
their linguistic origins or meaning. Paradoxically, these same texts
never refer to a "normal" scoliosis", which betrays that they do have an
awareness that the suffix "-osis" always is used with reference to a
pathological condition.
"Lumbar lordosis" refers to an abnormal or pathologically increased
posterior concavity of the lumbar spine,"thoracic kyphosis" refers to an
abnormally increased posterior convexity of the thoracic spine, and
"scoliosis" to an abnormal deviation of the spine to either side of the
vertical.
The linguistically accurate terminology for the curvatures of the spine is,
as you point out:
1. a convex anterior (or concave posterior) cervical curvature
2. a concave anterior (or convex posterior) thoracic curvature
3. a convex anterior (or concave posterior) lumbar curvature
Incorrect, ignorant and careless misuse of terminology does not make that
terminology correct. That is why there are linguistic rules and standards.
Similar confusion exists between the use of the terms "inversion" and
"pronation", and "eversion" and "supination" of the foot. While pronation
and supination refer to simple rotations of the foot or hand about the
longitudinal axis running through the hand or foot, eversion/inversion of
the foot involves concurrent pronation/supination of the foot, ankle
plantarflexion/dorsiflexion and medial/lateral rotation of the lower
extremity. That is why one has to be very careful of attributing "leg"
injuries simply to excessive pronation or supination without examining
which other combinations of limb rotation are also involved during foot
propulsion and shock absorption.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PLATOONS OF SCIENTISTS
From: Arnab Ghosh <phu...@mindless.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:39:11 -0700
Mel, I think you are being quite harsh on the (many) authors of the survey.
It wasn't a standard type of interventional study, butg mapping the whole
genome of an organism. Do you even realise how complicated that is? I've
known world-class biochemists to spend as much as 3 months just decoding a
single gene. The task performed by the scientists in the study you quote
is nothing short of gargantuan, even given the number of authors involved.
Arn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Very persistent pec tear/tendinitis
From: Arthur Schloth <sch...@ICD.Teradyne.COM>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:41:49 -0700
> From: Andrew Furer <fu...@fas.harvard.edu>
> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:17:21 -0700
>
> After having had over the years many minor left side pec tears culminating
> in a (minor) partial rupture two years ago, this spring I had the bad luck
> to have had a significant strain (though not a rupture) on my right side
> (I am right-handed). This injury occurred on May 14, after which I rested
> two weeks or so, and then (as I had done successfully with the old minor
> left pec tears) went back in to the weight room to do other body parts
> normally, and partial range of motion chest. This workout seemed OK, but I
> then had a strenuous Memorial Day weekend (sawing down small trees, etc.)
> which seemed to irritate the pec, and when I returned to the weight room
> after the weekend, seemed to re-injure it.
Andrew
I had a very similar experience. About 1.5 years ago, I tore a pec muscle
on the negative side of a 315 lbs bench press. It was
a slight tear, but enough to cringe when thinking of pressing
135 lbs . I was miserable!
I tried numerous things of little or no help. My Harvard Health HMO had
me come in after much begging. They had me see someone who had very little
experience with sports related injuries. She looked at me, had me move
my arm up and down, and then prescribed pain killers. After more begging
she said I could call back in a week if it was not better and arrange to
see their sports specialist. A week later I saw the sports specialist, who
had me move my arm up and down and around this time, then
loaded me with pain killers, and basically told me not to come back.
Thanks for nothing. What kills me, is I bet this second guy could of
actually helped me. He seemed knowledgeable, but the cattle mentality of
the HMO prevent this.
What did help was Stuart McRobert's book "Beyond Brawn". A portion of
his book is devoted to lifting injuries. He describes
many injuries that plagued him in his training, and how he overcame them.
He advises trying a method of healing called Myotherapy.
I went to a certified Myotherapist in the Greater Boston area.
After a couple sessions, I was able to apply Myotherapy to myself
(a tad expensive). I still apply Myotherapy fairly regularly. I bought
Bonnie Pruden's myotherapy book.
Was Myotherapy a cure-all? I don't think
so, but I believe it did help some.
So 1.5 years later, I've been able to make progress in my other body parts
e.g.. legs, back. My lifts in chest have increased to where they were 1.5
years ago. I have not barbell flat benched (seriously) since the accident.
When training chest, I have focused on the barbell incline bench, weighted
dips, dumbbell presses (obviously not all at once). I no longer complete a
set of less than 6 reps for chest.
I now base all my work-out routines using Stuart McRobert's books "Beyond
Brawn" and "Insiders Tell-All Guide on Exercise Techniques". In my opinion,
the best books by far out there for non-steriod users.
I throw in a little Mcsiff, Poliquin, and Shawn Phillips.
I still am not 100% in my left pec, I no longer feel pain, but every now
and again on that last rep, there is a subtle reminder that tells me
not to go for it this time.
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
-Art
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of weights
Issues of the weights digest, along with a Links directory, a bookstore,
and much more, are available at WeightsNet:
To contribute to the next issue, please send email to:
mailto:wei...@WeightsNet.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to:
mailto:weights...@WeightsNet.com
For further information, contact Michael Sullivan at:
mailto:sull...@WeightsNet.com
The views expressed in weights are those of the individual authors only.