How to fix Kyphosis and improve posture?

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.

urbanwalker72 said:Competition between medications is one thing, but proving they work better than a placebo is quite another.

By definition, a drug is something that performs better than a placebo.

So, the harsh reality couldn't be any different from the picture you've painted.

The reality is that the segment of alternative medicine which isn't more effective than a placebo represents one of the most serious frauds of our time and remains one of the most lucrative illegal businesses in the world.

The differentiation effect is easily felt during the course of treatment, and especially after active therapy, particularly if they regularly perform exercises that enhance proprioception.

Of course they feel it, but feeling it isn't proof.

Proof is established this way: You take 100 people who need such therapy, selected via random sampling. These people believe they are seeing a specialist. Half go to you, half come to me. They are certain they are visiting a therapist for differentiation. You know exactly what you are doing, whereas I have no idea; I just perform some random movements, massages, and nonsense.

In the end, we compare the results. If even after my "treatment" a certain number of people feel or believe there has been an improvement, it is merely a sign that those people were recovering without any actual therapy, because I am not a therapist.

If you have, say, 15 people improving and I have 10, then your therapy is ineffective, because my "therapy" doesn't actually exist, yet the results are similar.

Only if, for example, 10 people recover with me while 30 to 40 recover with you, do you have the right to claim your therapy has a genuine effect.

That is the first test. If you pass it, then you are a true therapist, rather than someone just playing the part.

In the second test, instead of competing with me, you compete with a physical therapist. I know you think it counts as proof if a physical therapist fails to help someone but you succeed. But individual cases and anecdotes are not evidence. Evidence must be statistically significant.

It is measurable if someone finds it easy to play around with it (yesterday, a swimmer extended her latissimus and increased her reach by 8 centimeters in 5 minutes; she measured it because that was her goal).

And will that stay with her for the rest of her life?

I am not saying your effect isn't measurable or real. How would I possibly know whether it is or isn't?

I am simply telling you how things are proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

People who need to improve or solve a specific issue seek me out, and together we figure out what can be done. If I see that the problem or goal can be solved through differentiation, I'll say so. We move toward education, and results follow—which is measurable in athletes through better performance, or in others through feeling better and stopping pain, which they can maintain as long as it serves their interests.
And anyone who needs statistically proven assistance can go to those who provide it and see for themselves how it works.

He’ll stay that way as long as he keeps working on his proprioception and his sense of controlling his latissimus.

I understand what you're trying to say, and thank you.
The head of the club that Elvan runs for called me and arranged for five more of their top runners to come out in May so I can teach them what I taught Elvan—and he didn't ask me for any "proof" regarding what I do. So, I really don't see any need to prove anything to anyone.

There is plenty of theory regarding my methods on my website; you could probably read enough from there to tell whether my work is based on voodoo magic or scientifically proven facts.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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: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...

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?