Serge Gracovetsky's Spinal Engine theory

[Guest guest]

What might be of some interest to you folks.

www.argos-europe.com/PDFs/ASN%203%20Gracovetski.pdf

An interview with Prof. Gracovetsky who outlines his theory of " The

Spinal Engine " .

I was introduced to this by an article by Erl Pettman, a

physiotherapist, in his article for a newsletter. " the hip bone is

connected to the foot bone... "

www.naiomt.com/articles/fall2000.pdf

I would love to hear any comments about their theories.

[First of all, I would suggest that the writings of both authors be

examined alongside the work by Zajac and colleagues which shows that

muscles that are distant from the spine, hip and other body regions and

which do not even cross the joints concerned can produce action about

those joints. This is something that neither Gracovetsky nor Pettman have

taken into consideration. For example, see: Zajac F E & Gordon M F (1989)

Determining muscle's force and action in multi-articular movement

Exerc Sport Sci Revs 17: 187-230. If you have access to

" Supertraining " 2000, I discuss this issue at the end of Ch 3. Mel Siff]

Jarlo Ilano, MPT

Physical Therapist

Physiotherapy Associates

Redmond, WA 98052

[Guest guest]

" jarloi " <jarloi@y...> wrote:

> What might be of some interest to you folks.

>

> www.argos-europe.com/PDFs/ASN%203%20Gracovetski.pdf

>

> An interview with Prof. Gracovetsky who outlines his theory of " The

> Spinal Engine " .

>

> I was introduced to this by an article by Erl Pettman, a

> physiotherapist, in his article for a newsletter. " the hip bone is

> connected to the foot bone... "

>

> www.naiomt.com/articles/fall2000.pdf

>

> I would love to hear any comments about their theories.

Mel Siff:

> [First of all, I would suggest that the writings of both authors be

> examined alongside the work by Zajac and colleagues which shows that

> muscles that are distant from the spine, hip and other body regions and

> which do not even cross the joints concerned can produce action about

> those joints. This is something that neither Gracovetsky nor Pettman have

> taken into consideration. For example, see: Zajac F E & Gordon M F (1989)

> Determining muscle's force and action in multi-articular movement

> Exerc Sport Sci Revs 17: 187-230. If you have access to

> " Supertraining " 2000, I discuss this issue at the end of Ch 3. ]

Dr Siff,

Though very interesting I'm not sure how Zajac and Gordon's point

of " it may be more useful to examine muscle action in terms of

synergism rather than agonism and antagonism " (Supertraining p.199)

negates the theories which Gracovetsky and Pettman espouse.

[i didn't say anything about that research by Zajac and co negating

those theories. If anything, this would suggest some re-examination

of certain premises and possibly lead to some modifications of the theories.

If any relevant facts are omitted from any models, then a consideration of

these facts may be useful in producing a more refined model. If you read

the entire Zajac article, you will see what I mean. Mel Siff]

If anything the point that the body can be effected from actions

distant from the region, is what Prof. Gracovetsky is talking about.

My take on his theory is that motions (or lack thereof) in the spine

can have effects throughout the lower extremities. His quote " The leg

transfers the heel strike energy to the spine. It is a mechanical

filter. The knee is a critical part of that filter. Improper energy

transfer will affect spinal motion. Functional assessment of the

spine ought to be part of the assessment of knee surgery " .

Pettman extrapolates further, in stating that perhaps instead of

the common current refrain of foot mechanics affecting low back pain,

that it can very certainly be the other way around.

[And, of course, neither of those processes may be implicated in

the back pain or dysfunction process. The problem does to have a

single unique solution and maybe even both of those models are

equally acceptable among several other models which also appear to

describe whole body movement fairly well. Mel Siff]

This seems to me, to also follow your oft repeated assertions that

we should be looking at human movements as a totality, rather than

single joint actions. I interpret all this information, as an

injunction to not seek simple joint and muscle answers to whole body

problems. With this in mind, I look for so called " clinical

patterns " when I assess patients, not just the particular painful

joint in question. So I can, to add another cliche', " not miss the

forest for the trees " .

I also thought Gracovetsky's concept of the " spinal engine

(locomotive) " was such a fascinating conjecture. Have you ever

encountered anything similar to this in your readings?

Jarlo Ilano, MPT

Physical Therapist

Physiotherapy Associates

Redmond, WA 98052