Posts by rustybadger42

The facts speak for themselves🙂

urbanwalker72 said: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.

Haha...Yeah, right.
No thanks. For me, quality matters way more than quantity.
N'joy :-)

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.

urbanwalker72 said: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?

It's not hard... it just gives you vertigo. 🙄
It's obvious you're just spinning your wheels trying to use your own perspective—and the perspective of most of the average users here who are looking over your shoulder—to argue against something whose effects are visible when you actually do it. Anyone with eyes could see the results in the photos I personally linked. Reading the explanations of why 99% of adults suffer from chronic issues, combined with comments from people who actually helped themselves this way, should change anyone's perspective—even a layman's—and make them rethink what they think they know.

I don't get why you're categorizing a therapist whose work is respected and practiced by elite athletes as quackery or voodoo magic. Especially since he doesn't even claim to be doing anything extraordinary. Plus, it's emphasized that success depends mostly on the client, and that this is an educational method rather than a manipulative one. Is it because you truly don't believe there's a solution for most of these problems, or do you just refuse to admit you don't understand the sensorimotor feedback loop? Or is it something else entirely?
Are you just leaning on "scientific evidence" because you don't have any other arguments? Why won't you take a stance on the scientific facts regarding this idea—which you seem to find halfway cool and halfway not—since you can't even decide whether to acknowledge it or not?
And please, don't confuse people by grouping the autonomic nervous system—which handles those vital organs and smooth muscle functions outside our conscious control—with the somatomotor system, which governs skeletal muscles and responds to our will. Otherwise, it makes it sound like everything is just randomly hard wired—kind of like your position here. Cheers!🙂

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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?

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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?

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?

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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. :-)

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?

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...

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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.🙂

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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.

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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?

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

urbanwalker72 said: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.

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.

urbanwalker72 said:Unfortunately, this isn't just a matter of marketing. We are dealing with raw reality. If something actually works, it can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, and those treatments quickly integrate into daily life and become part of mainstream medicine.

This isn't solely about medicine, either. Any claim that something possesses a real, measurable effect must be able to withstand independent verification.

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.🙂

Nicole Ross said:she’ll scratch exactly where she needs to, run more efficiently, and stop fighting herself—over the next few weeks, her whole perception of running is going to shift. She’ll start enjoying it more and more, until it isn’t something she "has" to do, but something she actually *wants* to do. And honestly, that distinction makes a massive difference in how stable your form becomes, how much you understand yourself, and when you move toward collaboration between the "mind and body"—rather than battling the "mind and body"—you find yourself in a position to be the fastest and best version of yourself, without burning out like a maniac from the sheer misery of doing something you "used to" love but now increasingly dread. It’s funny, really—that’s exactly what happens to most people in their careers.
So, in a few months, she’ll have all the right conditions to be as good as her genetics allow, and from there, anything is possible.

Next week, I’m starting work with a famous American athlete who, not too long ago, brought a ton of pride and joy to people with his achievements—though he can’t quite do that anymore for various reasons. He’s desperate to get back to his true self, and I truly believe that by using differentiation, we can make that happen.

If he gives me the green light, I’ll post updates on his progress on my website. :-)

Yeah, it’s such a great feeling when things that used to be a struggle become effortless thanks to differentiation. Effort without results just breeds frustration—which kills willpower and, ultimately, performance. You see it in everyone, but in professional sports, the pressure is just relentless.

It’s interesting you mentioned that—there’s this huge misconception that if it doesn't hurt or push you to your absolute limit, it isn't effective. But forcing a body that isn't in optimal condition to hit those limits is actually counterproductive in the long run.

Working in medicine, I see people hitting dead ends every single day—treating the symptoms instead of fixing the root cause has basically become the standard rule in healthcare. Whether it's intentional or not, it doesn't really matter.
The reality is that the solution to so many health issues lies within ourselves. It's just that the marketing lobby is far too powerful to let anything simple or logical actually gain traction.

It’ll be interesting to watch how Abeylegesse does... who knows, maybe we'll see another world record shattered.🙂

Nicole Ross said:It was actually really interesting working with her—especially since English isn't exactly her strong suit, so she was quite closed off and feeling pretty down when we started. But she was motivated and a great student. She ended up gaining about 2 centimeters in height, too. That really put a huge smile on her face. :-)

Of course she would be. Those 2 cm felt like a total jackpot to her.
I actually felt that same sensation of a lengthened torso myself after integration.

It seems to me that a huge flaw in how people approach this is a failure to understand the fundamental rules of movement—specifically, that it’s not just about bones and muscles being the sole drivers of motion. By ignoring the fact that movement is the result of a sensory-motor system that operates through reversible processes, people end up viewing it as some kind of miracle.

Nicole Ross said:Answer 1
The whole point of differentiation is to overcome the subconscious muscle tension that we deal with during therapy. The root of that tension is SMA. Because of that, you get slow, but significant and lasting changes in the perception of posture and movement across all levels involving those muscles or muscle groups. They cause constant tension that we just get used to—we don't even notice it anymore—until eventually, we start noticing the consequences in the form of chronic pain and worn-out joints.
It makes the muscles hypertonic. Since they are tense all the time as part of the process, they create lactic acid, which makes them sensitive—and in stronger or longer-lasting cases, painful. These tensions are unconscious, unnecessary, and persistent. They stem from subconscious parts of the brain. The focus of therapy is to teach the person how to regain sensory awareness over the muscles that are subconsciously tense. That way, they regain conscious control over the portion of movement they lost due to SMA.

Answer 2.
It would be nice if you could stop repeating that I'm a good nutritionist, because honestly, I have no idea where you heard that. I don't practice nutrition, nor have I ever taught anyone. Also, Kolinda mentioned Feldenkrais on January 19, 2014—which was before she even attended her first session with me—so there's no way she knew how I work. As for the answer to what I actually do, please refer to Answer No. 1. The client performs the exercises, not me. And as for my qualifications? I earned them by successfully resolving "unsolvable" and idiopathic diagnoses in my clients. It would be pretty strange if I were trying to solve their problems using the methods of those "classic" practitioners you described above—people who didn't get results or actually made things worse.

Answer 3

Please, don't worry about me—worrying creates contraction in the front of the body, and if that happens repeatedly, that contraction becomes conscious. You'd end up with SMA yourself, which would mean you'd have to strengthen your back and do abdominal stretching, and your money would basically vanish into thin air for a few months. You likely have much more important things to do than that, besides, you really need a professional to supervise back strengthening so you don't end up injured. Because, let's face it, everyone is their own worst trainer.
I’ve laid out what I do and how I do it more times than I can count—but clearly, it’s just not sinking in. And honestly? That’s fine. Neither of us needs to lose sleep over it. As for those questions you asked at the end, I already covered them in response 2.

Response 4.
Since you all seem so incredibly fascinated by my methods, here’s a suggestion: why don't you sign up for three sessions, run through the exact exercises I teach, and then write a glowing review on this thread? You could tell everyone firsthand just how "revolutionary" this physical therapy is—and how it has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than reaching straight into the pockets of naive people.

My next opening is April 8th at 1:00 PM, so let me know if you want in. Interestingly enough, Elvan Abeylegesse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvan_Abeylegesse ) is coming in for therapy at 3:00 PM that same day. You could always chat with her about her experience—this will be her fourth session, after all—and maybe grab a photo with her for Facebook.
It might just be the best 50 bucks you ever spend.
P.S. Since you clearly consider yourself so well-informed, perhaps you should ask Mr. Khalid Nasif, that physical therapist from Termi Čatež—assuming he’s actually qualified enough to be a relevant reference—what he thinks about differentiation and whether he’s even heard of it.

I took a look at her case study and I have to say, I'm genuinely impressed.
Her posture was noticeably corrected in just a few days.
That obvious Hyperlordosis was fixed—you can see how much better her hip, chest, abdominal, and neck alignment looks now. And all in just a matter of days.
There's also this new, relaxed expression paired with much more upright posture.
Plus, you can really see in those final photos how much taller a person appears once their back and spine are actually aligned.🙂
..so if anyone dealing with a hunched back wants to see what's possible, here's the example:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...ype=blogs&_r=0

Walter Ross10 said:Thanks a lot to everyone for the replies.
I mentioned earlier that my question might be a bit naive, mostly because I have absolutely no clue if most people live with some level of postural deviation that’s just considered "normal" within reason, or if these issues are strictly reserved for the sick and injured—or perhaps it's so widespread that most people aren't even aware they have it.

Should every recreational athlete seek out a professional for an assessment?

What are the actual red flags for posture problems? Could it simply manifest as having a specific weak point, like lower back weakness, for example?

Nicole Ross, I was looking through your site, and the reason I'm asking these questions is that the case studies you feature involve people dealing with headaches or other obvious symptoms, which leaves me a bit confused.
By the way, I would send a photo, but honestly, I don't think I'd make the trip out to Brezice for a consultation right now; money is a bit tight at the moment, so I'm not sure what the cost would be.🙂

Hardly anyone has perfect posture these days. Just watch the people around you... how they walk, how they stand... Given our modern lifestyle, our proprioception is basically stripped away—it’s effectively impossible to avoid faulty movement patterns or maintain the kind of balanced movements required to keep the posture we had as kids. Most people have some form of misalignment, and for some, it's pretty obvious to the naked eye depending on how far it's progressed. That imbalance is just the body compensating to avoid negative effects. But over time, it turns into a cascade that leads to stiffness and pain. We don't feel the actual misalignment itself because the body adapts and the brain accepts it as "normal"—instead, we just feel the consequences it causes.
Training that's supposed to be performed correctly won't have a positive effect on a body that isn't in balance... which is why even athletes working with pros end up with terrible health in the long run. Take the guy in that video about pelvic drilling... the real issue is how mobile he is in the neck and shoulder area; if you look closely, his head is tilted slightly to the right, meaning his right side is subconsciously tighter and he's putting more weight on his right leg. Because of that, his exercises can't be symmetrical, and eventually, he ends up with pain in his right hip, knee, and foot. Differentiation is how you learn better proprioception—that sense of body position—and that's how you actually correct your posture.div>

Walter Ross10 said:A question for everyone here... maybe a bit foolish (likely) 😁
But how can one actually observe their own posture to see if there's an issue? Is that even possible?

By the way, I really enjoy these discussions; regardless of how heated the arguments get, you can still learn quite a bit. 🙂

That’s a great question to start with—it helps figure out why and where a potential issue stems from, so it definitely isn't stupid. 😉

Sean Bailey75 said:Okay, so I looked through those pages to see what the author is trying to get at:

WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?

DIFFERENTIATION implies a safe, gentle, cognitive, and long-term process for eliminating chronic muscle pain. It is an educational process of muscular retraining, rather than a passive therapy. This is the only form of sensorimotor exercise that teaches us the skill of removing the actual causes of chronic muscle pain; specifically, Sensorimotor Amnesia (SMA). Sensorimotor amnesia is a state of chronic muscle tension that occurs as a result of an accident, habituating to certain types of movement, or being exposed to constant stress.

Muscles caught in sensorimotor amnesia have learned and become accustomed to being tense, and they stay that way regardless of what you try to do—stretching, massage, chiropractic work, or painkillers—none of it will
relax them in the long term. Muscles that have learned to be tense must be taught how to be relaxed again.

Differentiation is a method that goes straight to the heart of the problem: the brain and the nervous system, and their ability to control muscles and movement. Over time, the brain forgets how to relax the muscles, and for that reason, we have to retrain it. We have to retrain both the brain and the muscles to eliminate the pain and
regain mobility.

While most other methods for relieving pain focus on the specific area where the pain appears (like the neck, hip, or back, for example), differentiation is a method that recognizes that pain in one part of the body is part of a broader pattern of muscular dysfunction. These patterns are reflections of a typical, characteristic response to stress.

Now, putting aside the grammar, which clearly wasn't typed very professionally (and I don't use special characters because some keyboards don't have them), or the choice of the term differentiation which means something else entirely in scientific contexts, I’m curious about the meaning of a text that was so sloppily written. Where does the idea come from that this specific educational service called "differentiation" is the only one, or somehow different from the many physical therapies that already exist?

Furthermore, the term "somatics movements" sounds like a clumsy way of saying "body movements." "Somatics" comes from the Greek word for "of the body"—for instance, in medical terms, a "somatic illness" refers to a physical disease, something distinct from a mental illness. Again, I won't comment on the expertise of the person who typed this or their lack of linguistic precision. However, using foreign terms like this doesn't exactly scream professionalism, so I have to wonder: what kind of physical exercises is this organization/company actually offering? I ask because, the way it's presented, it feels like an unskilled person is trying to make familiar things sound fancy by using obscure and vague terminology.

I definitely agree that the core idea is solid. Most of what’s being argued holds water—especially regarding conditioned motor patterns and the importance of addressing the root cause rather than just patching up the symptoms. However, it remains completely unclear to me what the actual distinction would be between these 'differentiation' or 'somatics learning' exercises and standard physical therapy or therapeutic gymnastics (and let's not confuse that with competitive gymnastics!).

Are there any links to videos where one can actually see how this looks in practice, or is there a fee (maybe $5?) required just to get a glimpse of it?

So you’re basically admitting that locomotor issues stem from sensorimotor dysfunction centered in the CNS—and that motor skills are driven by it, rather than happening independently, like you were claiming just the other day. Good for you. 😉
I assume you've also realized that muscles under constant tension can't actually be weak or atrophied—which was the whole point of our debate. Strengthening or stretching them isn't the fix.
Of course the idea is good. It’s more than just a concept; it actually works in practice.