Posts by urbanwalker72

dustygardener43 said:This isn't a matter for the government to handle. At its core, entrepreneurship is about managing business risks and everything else that comes with it. Anyone incapable of doing that shouldn't be in this game to begin with. Any level of state intervention—which is already far too heavy-handed here in the US—will only end up producing negative results...

I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

dustygardener43 said:When you look at credit ratings based on Dun & B criteria, they rely heavily on Dun && Bradstreet—which feeds into portals like Bill Gates and LinkedIn. The fundamental flaw, however, is their inability to distinguish between obligations owed to related entities versus external creditors. Consequently, subsidiaries often receive unfairly low scores... because a debt owed to a parent company isn't the same thing as a debt owed to an outside vendor, especially once a potential restructuring occurs and the company's profile improves significantly.
The second issue is the lack of data freshness; we don't get quarterly updates, for instance. Everything is tethered to whatever Goldman Sachs reports. If today is August 31st, we are essentially looking at "last year's snow." Making a decision on whether to engage with a partner based on data from December 31st of the previous year is a precarious gamble... one where we either walk straight into a risk or let a perfectly good opportunity slip through our fingers.

Indeed, though it is essential that the government stands firmly behind these ratings, and as you noted, all data ought to be refreshed on a quarterly basis.

A single data point regarding an account freeze doesn't offer nearly as much insight as a comprehensive FICO score would for a corporation.

The IRS possesses all the necessary metrics to categorize every business entity into specific tiers, ranging from top-tier performers to absolute bottom-feeders.

If they have the authority to publish lists of debtors and wage violators online, they certainly have the capacity to release such credit ratings as well.

Naturally, the evaluation criteria would encompass financial statements and bottom-line results, liquidity ratios, and a history of punctuality when dealing with partners, the government, and employees.

Walter Ross10 said:OK, thanks. I see the cause, but I'm not sure about the solution.
I read through the start of this thread and I'm honestly even more confused than before. It helps that I have better quality input now that my back isn't such a massive issue, whereas I was just skimming everything earlier.

But let's get down to brass tacks: can my issue actually be fixed by relaxing or strengthening certain muscles to balance out my pelvic tilt? If you think that won't work—unless we're talking somatic therapy—then how are other people successfully tackling this with conventional methods?
I'll be completely blunt; if I had to choose a path, I’d rather go to Ales than some standard physical therapist (assuming the cost was similar or even slightly cheaper). However, I'm not in a financial position for either right now, so I have to help myself as much as possible. For the time being, at least.

That's because it feels like black magic.

But let's get down to brass tacks; can my issue actually be resolved by relaxing or strengthening specific muscles to balance out the pelvic tilt? If you think it can't be—aside from somatic therapy—then how have other people managed to fix this using conventional methods?

According to him, it's not possible... yet according to others, it is.

I'll be completely honest; if I had to choose a path, I think I would seek out Nicole Ross over a traditional physical therapist (assuming the cost was similar or even slightly lower), but right now I just don't have the financial means for either option, so I'm trying to help myself as much as I possibly can. At least for the time being.

If you ever do decide to go, definitely see Nicole Ross. I'm genuinely curious to hear what happens. Honestly, if I were in your shoes, I'd prefer her too, because I need to learn new techniques. I've already mastered the old ones.

Nicole Ross said:It absolutely can be done, and there are several ways to go about it—though, if you ask me, the somatic approach has proven to be the simplest, most painless, fastest, and most lasting method out there.
You can fix pelvic tilt by strengthening the anterior muscles, which brings about a temporary balance, but honestly, it's much harder to maintain that state, and the risk of injury is significantly higher. But here's the real kicker with the "classic" approach: because you're dealing with tightness in both the front and back of the body caused by constant strengthening and stretching, you end up forcing a torso rotation. This puts massive pressure on the spine, which long-term leads to things like herniated discs, spinal wear and tear, sciatica, and all sorts of issues with the knees and feet—all because they're trying to compensate for that forced reduction in torso rotation.

Nicole Ross, is it possible to correct significant anterior pelvic tilt through squats and deadlifts🙂 ?

quietpilot87 said:Check out this useful book—grab a copy of Aleksandar Loven.

It covers posture and stuff, among other things.

I have a suggestion of my own.

Ben Goldacre: 'Bad Science'.

"You cannot use reason to convince people to abandon beliefs they did not acquire through reason in the first place."

rustybadger42 said:You don't "learn" the stretch reflex. That's why it's called a reflex.

You learn how to walk and move—and what you learn can be changed or forgotten.
It isn't hard wired.

That's the difference—and it's huge.
Go study up a bit more.

The concept of learning is quite convenient in this context. If the therapy succeeds, the practitioner takes the credit; if it fails, the blame is shifted to the client for failing to learn properly.

And if their condition returns to its previous state in ten days or a month, it is simply dismissed as them forgetting.

It is a win-win situation. This is precisely why such therapies are so difficult to investigate scientifically. They aren't exposed to the risk of being wrong, which allows them to always claim they were right.

Don't mistake my position for being against movement training. As someone who is a member of GymnasticBodies and has studied both Primal Move and the Ido Portal method, I know that it works. I am a proponent of movement-based training and the art of learning motion. In fact, I could likely teach you more movements than you could teach me.

The issue arises when pseudoscience begins to take hold. Any procedure that claims to be scientific must possess falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

With this specific therapy, that principle is absent. There is never any mention of how one might theoretically prove that the therapy does not work.

That is the fundamental requirement for testing any hypothesis within the realm of science.

rustybadger42 As the saying goes:
It isn't particularly difficult... it just tends to cause a bit of dizziness. 🙄
It seems as though you are simply spinning your wheels, attempting to dispute a reality that becomes undeniable the moment you actually put it into practice—much like how most of the average commenters hovering over your shoulder try to deny the very impact they feel when they engage with it.

It is impossible to dispute something that hasn't been proven, even when various studies suggest there is nothing to worry about. Take a look at what it says here:

Back in 2005, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials examined six published studies focused on the Feldenkrais Method, covering a diverse range of participants and specific interventions. Out of those six trials, five demonstrated positive results, while only one showed no significant change. The final assessment suggested that while the initial findings appeared promising, they fell far short of being truly definitive.

I fail to understand why you would categorize the work of a therapist—one whose methods are actually respected and practiced by elite athletes—as nothing more than quackery or some kind of voodoo magic.

Not exactly, far from it. If I were actually placing him within this group, I wouldn't be being quite this mild or tolerant. What he’s doing is right on the edge—it might just barely pass.

It is also worth emphasizing that success ultimately rests most heavily upon the client themselves.

When success depends primarily on the client's own mindset and belief, we are looking at the very definition of the placebo effect. By that same logic, a true treatment must, by definition, be something that performs significantly better than a placebo.

When you take Aspirin, nothing depends on you. The effect is purely physiological and biochemical, meaning your mindset can't alter how the drug actually works. It's only when you take a placebo that things start to depend on you.

That is precisely where the distinction lies. In my view, therapy should never be contingent upon the client's whims.

Are you leaning so heavily on scientific evidence simply because you lack any other substantive arguments to counter my position?

There simply aren't any other arguments to be made. Evidence has always been the only possible arbiter, everywhere we turn. This isn't just limited to the realms of science and medicine; our entire modern civilization is built upon the foundation of evidence. It serves as the fundamental mechanism that separates what is truly real from what is merely illusion. Whether it is the government demanding proof, a bank requiring verification, or a court seeking facts, the requirement remains the same. If you don't have the evidence to back it up, all your talk is ultimately for nothing.

Nicole Ross said:Aha, so we're using the logic that if it can't harm them, then it can't be doing anything at all? Interesting...

It isn't about what kind of feedback it is, it's about *who* is giving it.
Both individuals are highly trained professionals in strength and conditioning, injury prevention, functional movement analysis, and kinesiology—they have years of experience working at the highest levels of elite sports and rehabilitation. And yet, they didn't conclude that I'm just running a placebo; they actually felt the changes in themselves. They kept coming back, and they even openly allowed me to post about it, despite being my direct competition.
You know that too, but you just don't want to admit it because... well, you know why.

I honestly don't know what your issue is; I can't dispute their opinion regarding you and your therapy. However, I have already mentioned forty times now that while the progress is lovely, it isn't definitive proof.

Nicole Ross said:Of course it’s going to take time—it always does.
So you set this deadline yourself—what exactly am I supposed to do with that? You want me to try and fix postural issues with physical therapy in just one month and then compare the results? (Scientifically speaking, obviously.) You’ve already got the photos and the dates; I don't need anything else from you. Honestly, if someone actually wanted to learn how to do full splits in a single month—especially after spending years dealing with all those nagging postural issues caused by a sedentary office lifestyle and developing a personality that just accepts living that way—well, trying to teach them that would be unethical. It wouldn't serve anyone. Once a person finally corrects their postural issues in a month, they actually need some time to integrate those changes into their daily life. They need to sit less, move more, and realize that moving is actually a pleasure now rather than a chore. Maybe then, they'll develop the desire to work toward full splits—and sure, they can learn to do that too, of course, but certainly not overnight.
Think about it this way—if you look at any kid from birth up to age five, they absorb more about how to move than during any other five-year window of their entire lives. But here’s the kicker: they do all that without ever touching a weight, forcing themselves through grueling sessions, dealing with pain, or obsessing over stretching. It’s all just gentle, easy, fluid motion. Why can't we get back to that? What's up? ...which means you can really see how intense it all is—and honestly, you shouldn't go around underestimating it, either.

So, let me wrap this all up—basically, here’s the gist of it...
Fixing your posture? Honestly, that doesn't take much time at all—just a bit of focus. But if you’re talking about actually absorbing those new movements and making them stick? That’s a different story entirely. Automating those patterns while maintaining conscious control over the automation... well, that takes some real time. And frankly, it's the only way to make sure you don't just slide right back into your old, bad habits.
It’s kind of like dealing with an alcoholic—it isn't just about that moment they decide to quit drinking. That's only half the battle. The much harder part—the part that takes way longer and is significantly more grueling—is actually removing all those triggers and hazards that might lead them right back to the bottle in the first place. It’s about clearing the path, isn't it?

So, you are saying that only postural issues are resolved quickly, while everything else moves at a crawl. Even though both processes essentially involve teaching the CNS new patterns of movement.

Nicole Ross said:To suggest that controlling movement and posture is the same thing as managing heart rate or blood pressure is honestly ridiculous. We end up debating things that aren't understood at a fundamental level, so how can we expect any real debate on advanced topics? Sure, hormone control can be established, but not directly like moving an arm—it's indirect. (I've actually had several cases with women dealing with irregular menstrual cycles who saw everything normalize after we established abdominal control and stabilized diaphragmatic breathing.)

And once again: I don't manipulate the CNS; I teach my clients how to do it themselves. The CNS can only reprogram itself, but that requires education through active therapy—dialogue and supervised exercises—until they can perform them correctly.
That’s why I can't really give specific examples here on the forum; they wouldn't make much sense to anyone else.

So, thanks for the time and the enthusiasm in your responses, and I hope I haven't gone too far down a philosophical rabbit hole :-).

Best,

Nicole Ross

P.S. Tomorrow I’m putting a case study on my website about Leon Škoda, a handball player of 17 years. He was dealing with a hunched back, pain when breathing, rotation issues (he plays wing), and pain in his knees and feet. After just five sessions, all of that cleared up—just look at the photos. A total miracle :-)

Just to be absolutely clear: are you suggesting that the stretch reflex is not a function of the autonomic nervous system? Is that really what you are stating publicly here on this forum?

And once again: I am not manipulating the CNS; I am merely teaching the client how to do it themselves.

So, if the results aren't achieved, the fault lies not with you, but with the client being "incapable" of teaching their own CNS?

Nicole Ross said:Personally, I don't spend much time browsing the web to build my knowledge base—mostly because you just end up swimming in a sea of half-baked info and total confusion. My whole approach is built on diagnostics and eliminating SMA; once you do that, you regain control over the CNS. And when that control shifts, everything else—mobility, posture, all of it—shifts right along with it.

But when looking online, isn't it mostly just Thomas Hanna and Feldenkrais being discussed?

wearyotter81 said:Can you guys link me to any kind of text online that says the same thing—or even just something similar—that isn't hosted right here on your own site?

I suppose I can contribute as well.

Somatics represents a fascinating intersection of biology and self-awareness, much like how a pilot might study the subtle nuances of airflow to better understand the soul of their aircraft. It focuses on the internal perception of movement, moving beyond mere physical mechanics to explore how we experience our own bodies from the inside out.

The core concept itself is perfectly clear. It is simply a matter of questioning to what extent such a thing can actually be achieved in practice.

In my view, when a method proves effective, even in small ways, it earns the right to be classified as medicine and treated as a standard procedure. Conversely, if something is labeled as alternative medicine, it ought to be subjected to rigorous testing according to the strict standards dictated by scientific methodology.

Nicole Ross said:Discussing things in this manner isn't something I find productive or particularly enjoyable. You’re intentionally dodging my questions and instead throwing your own at me—questions you might actually get some answers to if you just tried addressing mine first.

What makes you think it "holds up somewhat"?
How do you interpret the feedback from Severin and Rajnovič if what I’m doing is supposedly something that should land me in prison?

"Can you take an average 40-year-old—someone hunched over from office work, lacking muscle tone, dealing with lower cross syndrome and anterior pelvic tilt, someone who can't even sit flat on the floor with their legs extended—and teach them to not only fix those issues but achieve full splits within a single month?

Can you or can't you?"

I handle the first part on a daily basis without any issues—which you can partially see in the studies on my website. As for full splits, that takes more time. More importantly, it depends heavily on whether the client actually wants it and is willing to put in the work, though it also depends on the state of the joints after being stuck in those aforementioned conditions for so long—because, let's be honest, not everything can be reverted to its former state.

Whether you believe in it or not doesn't really matter to me, but I do respect your convictions and your perspective.

Well, you aren't likely heading to prison because such gentle therapy couldn't possibly damage anyone's health. As for the feedback, I already told you: being satisfied is nice, but it isn't proof.

I handle the first part on a daily basis without issue, which can be partially seen in the studies on my website. However, achieving full splits requires much more time, and crucially, it depends on whether the clients actually want and desire it—though it also relies heavily on the condition of the joints following prolonged periods of the aforementioned issues, since not everything can be returned to its previous state.

That is precisely what I was arguing. It takes time, provided it even works at all. If the CNS were truly so plastic that it could be permanently altered overnight, they would be hitting full splits after the very first session.

In fact, is it true that most people are capable of a full split while unconscious?

If this is merely a matter of manipulating the CNS, why does it require so much time, whereas correcting postural issues takes so little? Isn't that effectively the same thing—teaching a new movement pattern to the CNS?

Nicole Ross said:Your perspective is totally in line with that old-school way of thinking that underpins most current therapeutics and training methods.
Try to wrap your head around the text regarding SMA—maybe then it’ll click why movement issues and CNS problems happen in the first place. And look, it's been known for decades that the CNS isn't hard wired; it's actually plastic in all its forms and functions. Just try reading up on it to brush up on some neurology, and suddenly that crooked spine won't seem such a lost cause:-)

Plasticity applies over the long term, whereas hard-wired patterns govern the short term. The longer a pattern is established, the harder it becomes to change.

You correct something in five days or five repetitions; that’s why I asked about the difference between learning proper posture five times versus attempting a full split five times. A plastic CNS handles both.

Nicole Ross said:Look, if you were actually reading what’s posted on the forums and participating in the conversation, you’d probably realize by now that tissues and nerves don't have "habits" of their own—they just follow orders from the brain. It's the brain that develops those patterns, which then dictates how it interprets sensory input from the body and how it sends motor commands back down.

If that concept doesn't click for you, then it's perfectly logical that the changes you're reading about seem like nothing short of magic. Honestly, there's no point in me trying to argue my case when we aren't even speaking the same language—it's like trying to talk to someone who isn't even in the building.

Cheers,

For the sake of this argument, let’s just assume that is how it works. Everything originates in the brain, within the CNS. However, if we follow that logic, if someone can manage to pull into a split while unconscious, they should theoretically be able to do the same while awake, given how easily you claim to manipulate the CNS.

What we actually observe in practice is that subconscious processes governed by the autonomic nervous system cannot be altered quickly or through sheer willpower, much like how one cannot simply command their heart rate, the contraction of smooth muscles, or glandular functions to change on a whim.

This principle extends to the range of motion and overall posture as well. It isn't impossible to change these things, but it is incredibly difficult. That is precisely why it is called the autonomic nervous system; it isn't called the remote-control nervous system.

rustybadger42 said:So, what, if someone goes from a stiff, broken-down body to full splits in a month, that’s supposed to be your scientific proof?
You're looking for proof backed by statistically significant differences, and if I happen to be part of that statistic, does that mean I'm cheating the system?

Health is what matters most.
Which method for fixing postural issues do you actually trust?
If you're following what's being said here, it should be obvious why classic stretching methods don't produce full splits, even after years of work.
But let's get specific;
Why do most adults end up with these acquired musculoskeletal deformities?

I am not entirely sure how difficult my writing is to follow. I was simply describing what a scientifically grounded clinical trial for any given therapy would actually look like.

The second point regarding splits is actually unrelated to that. I mentioned it only because it aligns with that PDF which suggests a lifetime of poor posture and postural issues can be almost entirely corrected in just a few days of therapy.

Health is the most important thing.
Which method for correcting postural issues do you actually believe in?

Honestly, I don't think any of them are particularly effective. You can achieve a lot, certainly, but a crooked spine is not easily straightened. It demands a great deal of effort and time.

If you understand what has been written, it should be clear why classic stretching methods fail to produce full splitters even after several years.
But let's get specific;
Why do most adults suffer from acquired musculoskeletal deformities?

It is due to bad habits that aren't formed overnight; we are talking about decades of poor posture, chronically weak muscles, and a limited range of motion. The body simply adapts; it becomes proficient at not moving, and the CNS is hard wired to move within that exact specific range.

The claim that this can be fixed in an incredibly short timeframe through light, painless movements that supposedly "reprogram the CNS" is, at the very least, unconvincing. That could only ever be one small part of a therapy. What about the weak muscles? How do you compensate for those? And what about the connective tissue, joints, tendons, and ligaments that have also adapted to that specific ROM? Every microfracture in that tissue requires ten times longer to heal than a damaged muscle. You cannot rush that. Training active flexibility is a lesson in patience and habit. It involves repetitions and progressive loading that spans years. This is why the strongest and most flexible athletes are gymnasts and Olympic weightlifters, not random forum users connecting via Skype to join your therapy session. Your patients might feel an improvement, and they might even feel better in the long run, but that doesn't particularly impress me. If you truly could reprogram the CNS, then you could make office workers perform bridges and splits effortlessly. That would fascinate me, and that would be true evidence of CNS changes. Not scientific proof, necessarily, but it would be quite cool.

Is it really convincing to suggest that decades of bad habits, deeply embedded in the very tissues, nerves, and brain, can be quickly rectified with gentle movements?

Nicole Ross said:But why on earth do you need scientific proof so badly?

Look, if you're that desperate for proof, why not just sign up for a session and experience the placebo or "voodoo" effect on your own body? I made a similar suggestion to Sean Bailey75, but nothing came of it.
It’s scientifically "proven" that bees shouldn't be able to fly—yet there they go, flying anyway. Not to mention how things proven scientifically can turn out to be wrong for a dozen different reasons, only for their error to be "scientifically proven" all over again a few years or decades later.
Sure, that kind of approach is necessary, but it isn't the best or the only right way to look at anything.
Tell me, how would you even go about proving how someone *feels*? Can you measure that precisely with some gadget? If so, which one? Exactly how much? Or is this just the eternal problem when researching anything that isn't material?

Here, I've got a link regarding Severina Lipovšek—physiotherapist, masseur, strength coach, and Doctor of Kinesiology. Link
He worked with Primož Kozmos during that gold medal run at the Beijing Olympics; the study is here
. If you can't be bothered to dig through the whole thing, just read the last section about his take on working with me—specifically how he felt about my "psychological deception" and the alleged placebo effect that supposedly lasts for over four months.
Anyway, I don't see any point in debating this further because it's clear you either aren't reading what I write on www.aeq.si or you just don't get it—but that doesn't stop you from spouting nonsense about what I do. It's rude, frankly, and quite arrogant; if nothing else, it suggests you're deeply out of touch with yourself. You ignore what you actually feel and think, choosing instead to blindly trust whatever someone "scientifically proves"—whether that's actual truth or just sponsored deception.

It isn't just about your specific claims. I require scientific evidence for medical treatments in general, because medicine isn't some playground where people can engage in amateurish trial and error. If they do, someone should be facing jail time.

I am not looking for scientific proof regarding whether a blonde is better than a brunette, or if FC Barcelona is better than Real Madrid.

Health is a serious matter, and tampering with it demands the most rigorous verification possible—the kind provided by scientific methodology.

If you want to try it, sign up for the therapy and experience the placebo and voodoo effects on your own body. I made a similar suggestion to Sean Bailey75, but he didn't do anything about it.

I will attempt to explain why that suggestion of yours is quite absurd. First, my personal satisfaction with your therapy would not constitute scientific proof of its efficacy. Second, Sean Bailey75 is a former gymnast with years of experience; he undoubtedly possesses superior muscle mass, strength, and flexibility compared to you regardless of your methods, so your proposal likely holds no interest for him.

It is scientifically proven that a bee cannot fly more than once.

Those are old wives' tales that are beneath any grown man repeating them as an argument, regardless of his education level. It is actually quite pathetic.

Tell me, how could one prove how someone feels? Can that really be measured precisely with some device? If so, which one? Exactly how much? Or is this a problem that follows the study of everything that isn't material?

I have already explained how such research is conducted. Comparisons can certainly be made. I won't repeat myself; please read it again.

Anyway, I don't see the point in debating this further because it's clear you either haven't read what I write on www.aeq.si or you simply don't understand it. Regardless, that doesn't give you permission to spout nonsense about what I do. It is rude and arrogant, and if nothing else, it suggests you are deeply out of touch with yourself—ignoring what you feel and think in favor of blindly believing whatever someone "scientifically proves," whether it be truth or merely sponsored deception.

I have read it. Everything written there is fine. The question is whether it works better than a placebo and, if it does, whether it works better than physical therapy. Not based on isolated anecdotes, but through concrete clinical trials.

Nicole Ross said:Go for it; you'd be doing them a massive favor while building quite the reputation for yourself. Ever heard of Saša Rajnovič from Rijeka? He’s an instructor for StrongFirst and FMS and all sorts of other stuff, and he actually found his way out of his own physical struggles through differentiation—though he isn't exactly the type of guy you can just pivot toward Dabić's methods :-)

And while we're talking about full splits... explain this to me: how is it that most normally developed kids can just do them (setting aside the fact that there are fewer of them these days), yet for an adult, it's treated like some kind of miracle?
What's actually different in a kid's muscles compared to an adult's? Is it the joints, or something else entirely?

Quite a few adults have developed musculoskeletal issues that make achieving splits nearly impossible.

But you're right; flexibility is largely governed by the CNS.

That’s precisely why I asked. Can you take an average forty-year-old—someone worn down by office work, lacking muscle tone, struggling with lower cross syndrome and anterior pelvic tilt, someone who can't even sit flat on the floor with legs extended—and teach them to not only correct those issues but to perform full splits within a single month?

Is it possible, yes or no?

You seem to misunderstand me; I am certainly not claiming your methods aren't effective. I am simply stating that they lack scientific proof, which is an undeniable fact.

Furthermore, while everything I've read is fascinating and holds up somewhat theoretically, I maintain my right to withhold belief until I see results backed by a statistically significant sample size.

Who can blame me for being skeptical that you could lead an average adult to a full split in just one month, when people like Thomas Kurtz, Kit Laughlin, or Christopher Sommer cannot achieve it even after several years?

rustybadger42 said:Give me a break... if you approached everything that way, you'd never realize just how much stuff we once thought worked is actually useless today.
I have no idea why you—someone who claims to base everything solely on scientifically proven facts—are treating this like it’s some kind of magic.

Proprioception... somatics... the locomotor system... the vestibular and sensorimotor apparatus... body weight... these are all scientific facts. :-)

Just because other methods are ineffective doesn't serve as a valid justification. There are unproven practices everywhere, whether in mainstream medicine, alternative therapies, or even the supplement industry.

So what? Whether your specific therapy is truly useful or not, the simple fact remains that it hasn't been validated by the standards of scientific methodology. That is my only point.

For what it's worth, I would be more than happy if it actually worked.

Fortunately, I don't personally require that kind of assistance right now, but if these techniques are learned so effortlessly in your circles, I might just send a few veteran Jiu Jitsu practitioners your way to help improve their flexibility.

Achieving full splits... in, say, a month? It seems the body learns quite rapidly in your environment. For me, it would likely take about four years of dedicated work to reach that level, if I ever did at all.

rustybadger42 said:Look, instead of mocking something you haven't even bothered to read, maybe try comparing your handful of studies against actual physical therapy cases or postural treatments in your own neighborhood. That would be enough. But no...

This is starting to border on 🙂

I am at a loss as to how one might break this incredibly foolish, circular loop, where it seems necessary to reiterate thirty times that merely reading studies or comparing subjective experiences does not constitute scientific proof of a therapy's effectiveness.

rustybadger42 said:Of course.
Except most of my work is built on standards, testing, and sampling.
But hey, irrelevant.
I've studied, understood, and applied S&D. And you know what? S works.🙂

Look, as long as there are gullible, easily swayed people out there, there will always be "experts" like the one you mentioned. If someone finds it easier to believe in smoke and mirrors than to sit down and connect the facts, let them waste their money. The only catch is that time always eventually reveals the truth.

In that case, I have no idea who you might be able to fool with some statistics. You certainly won't fool me.

I've studied, understood, and tested S&D. And you know what? S works.🙂

God willing. I should offer a small disclaimer: I don't particularly believe in God, but nonetheless.

If one truly engages in presenting scientific evidence and masters the fundamentals of that craft, they would understand that whether a therapy works for you or for me constitutes no proof at all.

It is quite incredible to hear someone say, 'I tried it, so I know it works.' As if that were sufficient. Even school children shouldn't be taught to think that way anymore.

Look, as long as there are gullible, easily led people out there, there will always be "experts" like the one you mentioned. If it is easier for someone to believe in smoke and mirrors than to sit down and connect the facts, let them spend their money on it. The only trick is that time always reveals the truth.

True, but determining who is a genuine expert and who is merely playing the part isn't done by intuition or personal experience; there is a specific methodology for how that is established.

But it doesn't matter. Everyone chooses their own therapies... I have nothing against it. It's like a guy from the Midwest watching people on TV and believing they get better just by looking. People believe in all sorts of nonsense, so, to each their own.

Nicole Ross said:That’s a super example you gave there—can't argue with that! :-)

This is actually the most common scenario we see. The only unique thing about this specific case is that everyone knows who Radovan Karr is, and he is certainly nothing like an alternative therapist. Even a prominent figure in the American alternative scene, Drago Plečko, has embraced him and even invited him to be a regular columnist for the magazine 😂
.
It serves as a striking illustration of how any charlatan can masquerade as an "alternative expert" and garner support not just from their own patients, but seemingly from the "professionals" themselves.

I could list dozens more famous instances of this kind of medical quackery that should probably result in jail time, but I realize that would be going off-topic here.

Hopefully, it is now clearer why scientific evidence is absolutely vital to prove whether a therapy is truly effective.

Yet, as you pointed out, such evidence isn't necessary for everyone. It is only required by those who prefer to think rather than simply believe. For the "I want to believe" crowd, empirical proof is quite unnecessary.

Nicole Ross said:He’s probably trying to explain why anyone would bother wasting time and money on such a complicated process—especially when nobody actually using the method is asking for those kinds of details? Most people just end up here because someone they trust told them the results were worth it.

I mean, why go through the trouble of doing something that isn't even necessary, given how naturally everything just starts working once you try it?

For what, exactly?

Have you run out of other ways to be skeptical, or what?

In truth, that is the only plausible form of skepticism.

Individual subjective satisfaction is sufficient for you. It is sufficient for them, too. But it isn't proof.

For instance, Dragan Dabić spent years selling his own alternative remedies for impotence. Not only were there satisfied customers, but he was also the "expert" writing articles for alternative medicine journals, living quite comfortably off the trade. And that went on for years.

In the end, it turned out that Dragan Dabić didn't even exist; he was actually the war criminal Radovan Karr, who was no alternative therapist at all, but used the whole charade as a convincing cover to escape and change his identity.

Following your logic, nothing should have been verified there simply because there were many "objectively satisfied" people. A tiny bottle of nothing—the placebo Karr was mixing up—cost about 100 dollars.

Setting aside his role in the war, does he really have the right to sell that for 100 dollars just because he has "objectively satisfied" followers for his "therapy"?

All he possessed was a background in psychiatry. He knew perfectly well the difference between a placebo and human naivety, foolishness, and a fundamental ignorance of the basics.

rustybadger42 said:The real issue is the individuals who just spin in circles, totally convinced that what they think they know is the absolute truth.

If your logic dictates that something is only effective if it can be proven by a measurable unit, then the exact opposite must also be true. Otherwise, your logic is just pretty one-sided.

Anyway, besides the fact that you keep circling back to the same thing—which doesn't really give us any other ground to stand on for this discussion, especially since you've read up on how S&D works—what else is there?

This PDF isn't the venue for debating the execution of scientific proof; we could attempt that over in Natural Science, though I suspect it would be futile. It seems quite clear from your posts that I am speaking from a place of deep familiarity while this concept is entirely new to you, and frankly, you don't possess even a remote grasp of the subject matter at hand. Therefore, if you haven't personally tested hypotheses or derived evidence before, I suggest you skip that part of the conversation.

rustybadger42 said:Of course I understand you.
But subjectivity and chance are also being ruled out by the sheer number of people—not just a few, but a massive group—who see specialists, sub-specialists, trainers, physical therapists, or massage therapists, only to end up waiting for a table in an operating room anyway. There's your proof that something in mainstream medicine just isn't adding up.

rustybadger42 said:And I'll just add—logic is always a better yardstick than statistics, which are basically just waiting to be manipulated anyway.

You make a fair point; perhaps the core of the issue lies within our medical field, specifically regarding how we approach education.

If you claim to be a medical professional yet lack even a basic understanding of how to interpret evidence, then we are facing a fundamental failure within the field of medicine—one where progress stalls because nobody is truly learning.

In my view, that is more fundamental than anything else.

rustybadger42 said:By that logic, hardly anyone would be sick today since every single ad claims to have a cure for almost everything.

But, in a way, you're right... the issue isn't really marketing. It's more about people—it's just easier to follow the path of least resistance instead of using logic to actually change something about themselves.
When we're talking specifically about kyphosis... the picture speaks for itself.🙂

It is clear that you aren't following my point. It isn't about what someone claims; rather, it is about the evidence itself. For evidence to hold weight, it must be derived through a logical process that eliminates all subjectivity and mere coincidence.

That is only achievable through the specific testing methods I have outlined.