Core stability and pain: Is it time to stop using the word stability to explain pain?

sidebridge feet
sidebridge feet

Purpose: To cherry pick a few research articles to suggest that even though our knowledge of core stability is very impressive its link to pain is poor. Nutshell summary: People in pain have spines that function differently than those not in pain.  Many treatments can influence pain.  The spine stability model of low back pain does not explain how people have pain and takes an overly mechanical view of the pain experience.  No test has ever shown that a spine is unstable or how "increasing stability" would lead to a decrease in pain.  Thinking that our spines need more stability or control may be the completely wrong path in explaining how people have pain or how our exercises help them.   Our treatment "corrections" occur not via one specific "corrective" mechanism (e.g. improving stability) but rather through global non-specific mechanisms that our better explained by our understanding of pain neuroscience.  Making the shift from believing that "stability" is the issue with pain can thus free up to choose completely different exercise programs.  Exercise and treatment prescription thus become simpler.  We have preliminary evidence to support this view with the clinical studies that show benefits with the various exercise conditioning programs that train different schools of thought on stability or the just as effective programs that completely ignore any concepts of stability.

Caveat of Ignorance

The purpose of this post is to question things that we say about exercise, low back pain and of course "spine stability".  This is an informed opinion piece and everything I say can be challenged strongly...that's why I write it.  I am also going to put out some "notions" on how I think exercises can help with pain and function.  These are certainly subject to debate and will probably change with time.  I have also ended the piece with a general overview of what I do in Part Two.

A BRIEF and not complete background on spine stability across two hemispheres

Two schools of thought regarding spine stability and low back pain emerged in the 1990s.

The Australians and their inner muscles - Train the local muscles first

The first was based on Bergmark's classification of muscles into "segmental" stabilizers and others into "global" movers.  Segmental stabilizer muscles were often considered to be tonic (constantly on) while the others were phasic (on intermittently to create movement).  This idea of muscles having different roles was suggested decades earlier by Janda.

Low back pain was assumed to occur when the segmental stabilizer muscles were inhibited and the global muscles took over.  The research supporting this idea came from the great work of Paul Hodges (A nice review of Paul Hodges and Motor control can be seen a Todd Hargroves site  In early studies, Paul showed that in healthy subjects the transverse abdominis and the multifidus muscle (two local muscles) should fire in a feedforward manner when someone is asked to lift their arm.  Lifting the arm is a perturbation to the body and muscles in the trunk and legs must turn on for us to keep our balance (some call this "stability').  Dr. Hodges showed that the "Tranny" and MFD turn on before or within 50 milliseconds of the deltoid muscle.  Since the muscles become active  before the deltoid we can assume that the brain did some motor planning to prepare the body for the arm raising - muscle activation was NOT a reactive response to the movement of the arm.

With low back pain Dr. Hodges showed that this feedforward (or motor control planning) was delayed in the Tranny and the MFD.  And BINGO a whole  industry was born and the misapplication of science ran hogwild over common sense.  So that's it.  All Paul showed was that in those with pain you got a DELAY in firing.  No one showed that the tranny was weak, no one showed that the muscle was turned off and no one involved in the research said that the Tranny was the most important muscle on the planet.

But somehow physiotherapists, chiros and personal trainers started telling everyone to suck in their stomach when they did squats because the muscle was erroneously deemed to be super important for spine stability.  This was never what the research suggested and caused fits in the North American Spine researchers who really railed against this simple idea.

The other school of thought - Train general core stability (a brief simple version)


Fortunately, I was innoculated against this because of my MSc with Dr Stu McGill in the late 1990s.  Dr. McGill and Dr. Sylvain Grenier were excellent in challenging the supremacy of the Tranny.  I view their research as less a repudiation of Paul Hodges' ideas and more of an attack of the misuse of Paul Hodges' research.  What McGill and his colleagues had always advocated and also modeled with their biological fidelitous spine model was that spine stability (aka the ability of a system to return to its normal position after a perturbation) was most robust when all of the muscles worked together in the trunk - all muscles were important for stability.  This was again nothing new and we knew this from other joints.  Muscles co-activate, create joint compression and the cost of compression is assumed to be offset by the benefit of stability.   This North American model of stability assumes that all muscles of the trunk work together to balance the stability demands of the spine.  Hence rehabilitation from low back pain should train all the muscles of the trunk in a manner that creates stability but does not do so at a huge compressive cost or adverse tissue loading cost.

Dr. McGill was a leader and pioneer in this.  He was the only one actually evaluating exercises and measuring stability and measuring the compressive/shear loading on the spine to determine which exercises might be "safe".   Dr. McGill was able to classify exercises in to ones which were "safeish" (lower compressive or shear loading on the spine) and others which might have a high compressive penalty but an individual got a good workout (i.e. lots of muscle activity).

The clinical relevance of both the North American and the Australian views are founded on a number of assumptions and unknowns.

What both views assume is that exercise training will make the spine more robust in terms of stability (not more stable, as we know a system is either stable or unstable - you don't make it more stable) and this will lead to less pain and perhaps decrease your injury risk.

Faulty research extrapolations to people in pain and other random stability issues

Below are a number of points regarding the limitations of the relationship between spine stabiliy and pain

1. We do not know why people have low back pain. We do not know what tissue is actually cranky/irritated, fires off a volley of nociception that may ultimately result in the production of pain in the brain (if it even is coming from some cranky/irritated nerve embedded in tissue and is not wholly a production of pain from the brain in response to some perceived threat).  We can not say that a disc is pissed off, a muscle is cranky, a facet joint is upset or if some ligament wants a vacation.  Damage in the spine has a poor correlation to pain. So if you can't identify what tissue is the source of nociception (and we can't) what is the mechanical basis for the prescription of any stability exercise?  How would changing the stability of the spine decrease nociception? If you think spine stability exercises actually change stability parameters by what mechanical means does this change nociception? If you think spine stability exercises help your patients and clients but you can't explain it via a mechanical explanation (but you know it works) do you think there might be  something else going on besides stability issues that you are affecting to influence the perception of pain?

2. Who cares if a muscle is delayed 50 milliseconds?  Really, what relevance does this have.  The muscle turns on eventually and does its job during a task.  Why is a delay of 50 ms relevant in terms of biomechanics.  Is this delay a defense or a defect?  Is the problem in the spine (unlikely) or more a symptom of "something is up" with the brain (more likely, and this is where Dr. Hodges is doing most of his work now yet in popular clinical culture we are stuck at the level of spine). I will go into Hodges work later in another post because I think his work on motor control and the brain may be extremely relevant.  Big point here, Hodges never measured stability.  Just muscle activation in all the muscles that make up the trunk cylinder (side note: he did a wonderful job here, I think his research is excellent, he is an excellent researcher and his contributions to our understanding in the area of motor control are without par.  I would also prognosticate that his future research might bridge the gap from mechanical views of spine and pain neuroscience).  Everyone just jumped on the stability wagon and assumed that it was compromised.  Maybe there is something else going on here besides stability.

3. The argument for the motor control camp against bracing and planking - "Don't brace or do planks because your spine becomes rigid" is a wee bit weak.  This is the argument against the North American model of spine stability and is used to justify"motor control" or low level exercise. It suggests that if you do a bunch of planks you will become rigid and activate your muscles too much. I disagree with this puppetry view of the body. Doing planks will not somehow carry over to rigidity in our activities of daily living.  We aren't puppets where we can tighten and loosen the strings of our spine. This is catastrophizing against a therapy rather by the patient.  These exercises aren't that powerful both in a negative or a positive way.  However, if you actively brace and assume a rigid posture as a choice during all of your normal activities then you can make this argument.  Don't blame the exercise blame the conscious choice of movement.

4. Do you think your patients are really "unstable"? Patients are in pain.  They move differently, you might perceive them to have "tight" muscles.  But is their spine really unstable? Is there a vertebrae in there sloshing around, sliding this way and that, pinching on stuff.  Is the spine really buckling?  We can have patients with high levels of spondylolithesis and their spines are not unstable.  I think we might want to reconsider telling our patients that their backs are unstable and they need stability exercises.  How much fear do you think this creates?  No one has ever shown that a patient with persistent low back pain has funny uncontrolled movements at a segmental level in the spine.

5. But my SI joint needs force closure, I need to train my Tranny or MFD or some bloody fascial sling.

How  is your SI joint unstable?  What wonky movement do you really think is happening in there?   I believe that there is less than 2 degrees of movement and a few millimetres of slide in that SI joint but how is having a delay of 60 milliseconds in one muscle changing this movement?  If it does change that movement why does this cause pain? And so what if the joint slides too much.  Other joints slide around and they don't create nociception.  And if you have a delay in the tranny won't the big, bad global muscles be on at the same time and thus increase force closure and shut down the movement.

These global muscles certainly have the architectural requirements to create force closure.  None of this makes sense. Oh wait, those global muscles are on too much and that causes too much compression in the joint and that causes pain.  Oh, gotcha that makes perfect sense.  But guess what, no consistent research actually suggesting that this happens.   The studies showing increases show increases that are extremely subtle and again how this would cause pain is never laid out in any logical or supported manner.   Well what if that joint is fused?  That seems like a lot of compression.  Should that not be painful yet its not? And why would compression from muscles be painful? Would someone not be better lying down and not lifting weight, walking, running if compression was so nasty for the SI.  More compression on a joint is not necessarily bad and does not lead to pain.  There is something else going on here.

childs pose
childs pose

5. Is it really that bad to get away from the neutral spine? I agree that a neutral spine is generally stronger when the spine is undergoing maximal compressive and shear loading.  Maintaining a neutral spine when deadlifting, doing kettlebell swings, squats and picking up your sofa makes some sense to me.  But do I really need to never bend or twist my spine.  It has a certain amount of movement built into it.  Why would I not use it?  Motion is lotion.  We would never tell another body part to not move.  Taking away movement is how we torture in Guantanomo.  The majority of spine pain does not occur because of we have overloaded it to an extent where it reaches the limits of tissue injury capacity.  This may be one of those issues where we can confuse injury with pain.  Neutral spine bracing can probably help with injury and performance when under high loads but is it necessary to decrease pain in someone getting up from a chair with low back pain?  I will grant that sometimes when you brace and move with a neutral spine and get out of a chair you have less pain.  In other people it gets worse.  Maybe there is something else that explains this besides stability.

6. Patients get better with all types of spine exercise programs.

We have clinical efficacy trials showing that a motor control program (e.g sucking in your belly and then progressing with more global exercises) and a global exercise program helps for low back pain.  So do general exercise programs.   We know that exercise for the spine can help but perhaps it does not matter which exercises we do.  When we get similar results from two different theoretically supported exercise regimes perhaps there is something about the two different programs that is similar.  Perhaps it is that similarity that leads to improvements in pain.  A recent paper by Mannion et al (2012) championed a similar idea.  In other words, we get results but not for the reasons that we think we get results.

7. I think we scare the shit out of people when you tell their spine needs stability

This the default word that many of us tell our clients.  "You're unstable, you can't "control" your movement and that is why you are in pain".  Its so defeatist and catastrophizing and really has little support.  I say we stay away from these words...See my previous post here on this same topic (The words we use can harm)


You can rehab a patient using the two different schools of thought on spine stability.  You will probably have similar results.  Conversely you could just have patients exercise their entire body and they will also show improvements. You will also have good results if you just teach people about pain and give them the confidence to keep moving and not get worried about their "bloody lack of stability" that some therapist told them they once had.

Stability is probably the most inappropriate word we can use to describe our patient's spines that are in pain.  No one has documented that patients in pain have unstable spines nor is there any reliable clinical test for it...yet we have been using this word for twenty years.  That is crazy yet so many of us think that we have to "increase the stability of the spine" in those with low back pain.  No one has shown how any dysfunctions related to "stability" actually cause pain. Again, crazy.  Yet we tell patients they need stability exercises to correct some mysterious bogeyman.   When we get results with completely different movements or exercises that totally conflict in terms of spine stability theory this tells me that the reason our treatment is effective probably has nothing to do with stability.

In part two, I will layout how the spine function is different in people in pain and also give some theories on what treatment does to help our patients.

This physiotherapist's approach to treating Persistent Pain

Audience: Patients and other health care providers Purpose: To explain my treatment approach to Persistent Pain Problems.

Overview of the Treatment Program:

  1. Pain Physiology Education
  2. Movement (Graded exercise/activity exposure)
  3. Manual Therapy

The Simple Goals of Treatment

  1. Decrease pain and sufferring
  2. Resume or increase the activities of a patient's life that are important to them

Assumptions that inform the Treatment Program

Pain is the brain's response to a perceived threat

Pain is an output from the brain that is meant to protect us.  It is influenced by a lot of things including, but not limited to, situation/context, past history, beliefs and expectations. Pain is a threat detector and set up to motivate us to do something about that perceived threat.  It is not good at telling us how much damage there is or even where there is a problem.  Think about people who have pain in a phantom limb. They don't have a bloody thumb yet that thumb sure can hurt. There is no problem in the periphery as there is no periphery.  Or how about when someone has a heart attack and they feel pain in their back or jaw or arm.

One difficulty with pain is that we can get better at producing it.  It become a habit.  We need to break that habit.  What scientists call this habit is our pain "neurosignature".

More information about pain can be found here and here

Inappropriate beliefs about pain further the pain experience

Understanding pain science itself can help decrease the pain that patient's feel.  Learning about pain improves coping skills, decreases catastrophizing, increases activity through reductions in fear and can change how the brain creates movement.  Patients are capable of learning complicated neurophysiological facts about pain and this in turn can improve their situation.

Pain influences all facets of our physiological function and our social lives

Pain is more than just a booboo in some tissue. Pain is an output and pain can influence other outputs of the brain. Pain influences our stress response, our immune function, endocrine function and our movement (e.g. kinesiophobia).  Pain can be linked with psychosocial factors like perceptions of injustic, castrophizing, depression and anxiety.

Tissue Damage (nociception) does not equal pain

Patients are not their x-rays or MRIs.  The link between tissue damage (e.g joint degeneration or muscle tears) is very poor. Pain persists long after tissue healing occurs and pain can occur without even an initial injury.

Continuing to believe that the source of pain is purely in the body can lead to further impairment. Old biomechanical models of tissue breakdown as the source of pain contribute to false beliefs that lead to more pain.  Addressing these beliefs and learning about pain neuroscience guides an individual's treatment program.

More information here and here.

Treatment Program Details

Pain Physiology Education

Knowledge really is power.  If we know that our achey knees aren't falling apart and the pain in our elbow isn't due to some serious muscle damage then that knowledge teaches the brain and the patient to be empowered, confident and optimistic.

Pain education starts on the first visit and continues during the movement/exercise therapy and during manual therapy.  Pain education is supported with website links and written material.

Movement (Graded exercise/activity exposure)

Motion is lotion. Pain can be seen as a habit of our brain.  When in pain many of the areas of the brain are activated and we can call this a NeuroSignature.  We want to sneak under the radar of that neurosignature and teach the nervous system that we are in control.  Graded movement (e.g. slowly building) allows to choose novel, non-threatening movements/exercises that increase our capacity to move and be active.  At the same time doing movements that are different and new can downregulate our pain response.  Movement is the key to the drug cabinet in our brains. Movement is medicine. The movements that we choose are not always pain free but they shouldn't be so intense that you experience "wind-up" or a huge flare up the next day.  Choosing movements and activities like this can increase our threshold for flare ups and pain.

Movement and exercise selection is not about increasing stability, strength or range of motion.  These constructs are poorly related to pain resolution.  While we often get increases in strength and range of motion following treatment it is not because we increased strength or range of motion.  These were side benefits to the program.  Last, I believe that words like instability or stability or inappropriately used to explain why people have painful problems.  It is highly unlikely that a patient's spine or hip is unstable.  When we use these words I believe we create a sense of fragility and doom. Most patients are robust.  It is our nervous system's over-sensitivity that promotes pain not some weakness in tissue capacity.

Manual Therapy

Very simply manual therapy can modulate the nervous system's production of pain. We have more than two decades of research showing that the means that manual therapy work is through changing nervous system function.  This is not about joints being out of place, breaking down scar tissue or merely strengthening or stretching muscles.  Immediate changes in the perception of pain, production of strength or change in range of motion can be seen.  Its not logical to assume that a 30 minute treatment session healed tissue, broke down scar tissue or suddenly made a muscle stronger. The only physiological component that can change this quick is our nervous system.  Manual therapy affects the nervous system and can improve our function.  All manual therapy techniques can be effective.

Treatment can included peripheral nerve mobilizations, soft tissue massage, joint manipulation/mobilization, movement pattern corrections (e.g subtlely changing how we move to not activate the pain signature), dermoneuromodulation and mobilizations with movement.  Treatment is typically pain free. I'm of the opinion that pain begets pain and treating with aggressive painful techniques can reinforce our pain habits in some patients.  While a short term pain relief can be felt following aggressive treatment (mostly likely due to something called Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control) I feel that this is temporary and unlikely to effect long lasting change.




The Why's and How's of Treatment Justification

This post is more about the "Why" and "What" of treating pain and injury.  It is not a full explanation on the "how" of treatment.  The "how" of treatment is important because it explains the mechanisms of what we think we are doing.  If we can understand a mechanism of how pain persists and how it can be alleviated we can change our treatment techniques appropriately.  Future posts will look into the mechanisms of treatment.

Structure is not Destiny - please don't rush to freaking out about your x-ray, MRI or ultrasound

Audience: Patients Purpose: To highlight the poor link between the bogeymen found on imaging with pain or dysfunction.

Our current technology is amazing when it comes to viewing the insides of our body.  The problem with this fantastic technology is that we can see something (e.g. a tear in a muscle or a joint with some osteoarthritis) and assume that there is something wrong or that this is the source of our pain.  However, the link between tissue "abnormalities" on MRI, x-ray or Ultrasound is often quite poor.  Many, if not most, people have "bad stuff" on their MRIs or x-rays yet have no pain.

A quick anecdote...I was with a patient that had horrible left shoulder pain. Poor movement and worse strength.  His doctor ordered an MRI and my patient reported to me that sure enough the shoulder was a mess.  Torn rotator cuff, bursal thickening, arthritis in many joints, some fluid collecting - an absolute disaster.  BUT, there was a problem.  He wanted to know if the MRI picture could have been "flipped" or "mirrored" because these results were for his Right, painfree shoulder.  The results weren't flipped or mirrored, we got the results for the left later.  They were just as "bad".  Point being, structure is not destiny.  Damage or scary stuff on any imaging report does not equal pain.  This patient ended up pain free in a couple months.  His MRI report would not have changed despite the changes in his strength, mobility and pain.

This is not new

I am not breaking any news here.  We have known this for at least 15 years.  Joint degeneration, disc bulges (even herniations), rotator cuff tears, calcifications in ligaments or joints are all normal variations that can exist without pain.  At certain ages this changes, assumed to be abnormal, are actually normal and more common than a lack of these changes.

Below is a sampling of research highlighting the limitations of structural anomalies and pain.  I was going to provide some insight but instead I will use this post as a catalogue of the research that looks at the relationship between tissue damage/abnormalities and pain.


Bottom Line:  Pain is poorly correlated with damage.

One caveat: I hesitate to say this but sometimes these structural changes can be related to pain... it is just not a guarantee or some harbinger of pain doom. What I want to emphasize is that it is just not as cut and dry as many make it seem.  There are many factors that lead to pain but we tend to blame the simplest one (e.g. joint damage) when we actually know better but persist in this fallacy.

Some other links on this topic:

Diane Jacobs:

Bboy Science (Tony Ingram):

Spine Imaging Abnormalities are really just normalities

Maurer M, Soder RB, Baldisserotto M Spine abnormalities depicted by magnetic resonance imaging in adolescent rowers.Am J Sports Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):392-7. Epub 2010 Oct 2.

Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS N Engl J Med.Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. 1994 Jul 14;331(2):69-73. (abstract  here)

Weinreb JC, Wolbarsht LB, Cohen JM, Brown CE, Maravilla KR. Prevalence of lumbosacral intervertebral disk abnormalities on MR images in pregnant and asymptomatic nonpregnant women. Radiology. 1989 Jan;170(1 Pt 1):125-8.  Link here

Takada E, Takahashi M, Shimada K.Natural history of lumbar disc hernia with radicular leg pain: Spontaneous MRI changes of the herniated mass and correlation with clinical outcome.J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2001 Jun;9(1):1-7. Abstract here.

Stadnik TW, Lee RR, Coen HL, Neirynck EC, Buisseret TS, Osteaux MJ.Annular tears and disk herniation: prevalence and contrast enhancement on MR images in the absence of low back pain or sciatica. Radiology. 1998 Jan;206(1):49-55.

Matsumoto MFujimuraY, Suzuki N, Nishi Y, Nakamura M, Yabe Y, Shiga H.MRI of cervical intervertebral discs in asymptomatic subjects.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Jan;80(1):19-24. Abstract here.

Shoulder abnormalities not related to pain

Connor PM, Banks DM, Tyson AB, Coumas JS, D'Alessandro DF. Magnetic resonance imaging of the asymptomatic shoulder of overhead athletes: a 5-year follow-up study.Am J Sports Med. 2003 Sep-Oct;31(5):724-7. Abstract here.

Miniaci A, Mascia AT, Salonen DC, Becker EJ Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder in asymptomatic professional baseball pitchers. .Am J Sports Med. 2002 Jan-Feb;30(1):66-73. Abstract here

Jost B, Zumstein M, Pfirrmann CW, Zanetti M, Gerber C.MRI findings in throwing shoulders: abnormalities in professional handball players.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 May;(434):130-7. Abstract here


Shellock FG, Hiller WD, Ainge GR, Brown DW, Dierenfield L.Knees of Ironman triathletes: magnetic resonance imaging assessment of older (>35 years old) competitors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Jan;17(1):122-30. Abstract here

Beattie KA, Boulos P, Pui M, O'Neill J, Inglis D, Webber CE, Adachi JD. Abnormalities identified in the knees of asymptomatic volunteers using peripheral magnetic resonance imaging.Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005 Mar;13(3):181-6. Abstract here

Shellock FG, Deutsch AL, Mink JH, Kerr R Do asymptomatic marathon runners have an increased prevalence of meniscal abnormalities? An MR study of the knee in 23 volunteers.

Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CW, Schmid MR, Romero J, Seifert B, Hodler J.  Clinical course of knees with asymptomatic meniscal abnormalities: findings at 2-year follow-up after MR imaging-based diagnosis. Radiology. 2005 Dec;237(3):993-7. Epub 2005 Oct 26.



More to come.

Peripheral Nerve Tensioner videos for that irritated nervous system

Below are Tensioner videos for your irritated and sensitive peripheral nerves. Warning: please only do this if your knowledgeable health care provider has taught these and specifically said that you should do these exercises.

Gentler "Slider" movements can be seen at a previous post here: Slider Videos

Median Nerve Tensioner

Radial Nerve Tensioner

Ulnar Nerve Tensioner

Sciatic nerve slump tensioner

Sciatic nerve long sitting tensioner


Persistent pain resources can be found here: Pain resources

Why do people feel stiff? Are your muscles really tight?

This article is purely conjecture. I have no hard data and would not even know how to create a study to test for it.  BUT, I consider it biologically plausible. Tightness is a common sensation for people with pain and for athletes during training.  However, when someone reports being tight in a region I find that they often are not in terms of their mobility.  Their range of motion will be wonderful, perceptually their tissue will feel "loose" upon palpation (warning: highly subjective on my part) yet they report a sense of tightness. Main point being there are no objective signs of tightness or limits in their range of motion.  So why does the perception of tightness occur?

Theories on the perception of tightness

1. that muscle that feels tight is actually beat up, pissed off, tired and angry with you.  But it is just a muscle and has no vocabulary.  It has no way to communicate complex emotions.  Your muscle is my angry toddler.  The muscle and always the nervous system just wants to communicate with you that something is off.  It is overworked and wants a vacation.  This is a good time to look at the synergists of the "tight" muscle and maybe see if they want to chip in when helping movement.  or have someone speak with the nerves around the muscle and ask how they are feeling (cramped? hungry? needing fresh air?)

2. No reason a nerve isn't tight or tired or stressed.  Check out the tension in your nervous system and then go Flossing (click here).

3. Generally irritated nervous system.  A local issue is not necessarily a local problem.  Think left arm pain with a heart attack.  If you are in persistent pain than it is likely and normal to feel oddities through out your body.

4. I forget.  There are definitely other possibilities.  Discuss amongst yourselves.



Nerve Slider Videos: Calming down that irritated nervous system

Audience: Patients Purpose: Demonstrate simple movements to calm, move and make healthy some irritated nerves. Disclaimer: Not to be done if painful. Do 5-6 to start. Always under health professional guidance.

Radial Nerve

Median Nerve

Ulnar Nerve


Musculocutaneous nerve slider

Very similar to the radial nerve but instead of bending your wrist so that the back of your hand faces the floor and your palm faces backwards you should let your palm face upwards, keep your thumb tucked in and then tilt your wrist to the side of your pinky finger.

This slider may be helpful with those with anterior shoulder pain that are told they have bicipital tendinopathy.

Sciatic, Tibial or Peroneal Nerve (Slump Slider aka Flossing)

Sciatic, Tibial or Peroneal Nerve (Long sitting slider)

Chronic Pain - Do therapists contribute? An unsolicted rant

Become invisible and walk into a Chiropractic, Physiotherapy or Massage Therapy office one day. Watch them speak with a patient who has back pain or maybe a little bit of knee pain. You may hear the following: -you need stability exercises -these muscles are very tight -you need therapy as you don't want this degeneration to progress -no more running or arthritis will certainly flare up and you will have real problems down the road -you have dysfunctional movement patterns -your glut muscles don't turn on -oh, it hurts here (pressing on upper traps). There some adhesions in the muscle -I need to see you 2-3 times a week for the next 4-6 weeks.

All of the above statements are from good, well meaning people. And some of these statements might even be appropriate under certain conditions. These statements typically are not from the quacks and crooks that look to exploit anyone who has been in a car accident or might have fallen off their bike when they were six (and therefore their spine is permanently in trouble because of this "trauma').

My concern is how all of these things sound to our patients - which is different from what we hear. If you tell someone they need stability exercises they probable assume their spine is unstable. That probably does not sound good to a patient with an incredible amount of pain. When we poke on areas that are "tight" or "sore" in everyone (e.g. the upper traps, you can't find someone who is not tender there) we catastrophize, comment on how tight it is and reinforce a pain belief with our poking and create beliefs in people that there is something wrong with their muscles.

Not encouraging patients to resume their normal activities and to keep active contributes to fear and movement avoidance.

Telling patients that the way they move is dysfunctional based on an arbitrary standard of how someone should move again creates the belief in people that something is seriously wrong when there is usually no serious dysfunction.

Seeing someone 3x/week for 6 weeks for whiplash or a simple backache. Come on. Common sense says this is bad practice even though it is somehow in many guidelines.

The bottom line is we  need to watch our words.  I am no exception,  I catch myself doing this too often.  An unstable spine means something completely different to a therapist than it does to a patient. The phrase degenerative joint disease should be banned - they have a joint that is changing like everyone's joints  and most minor symptoms have nothing to do with those normal changes.

Just some thoughts,

Greg Lehman