So here's the thing that you have to respect when you go from like a standing representation to a supine representation on the table because they're not the same. Okay? So there's a couple of potential things that could happen. Good morning. Happy Monday. I have no coffee in hand and it is perfect. It's really good, I can't wait to finish that. Okay, busy Monday. We're gonna dig right into this quick reminder. For those of you that are IFS University members, we have a Q&A today at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. So please join me for that if you're an IFSU member. If you're not an IFSU member, why not? Probably time to get signed up for that. Okay, we'll dig right into today's Q&A with Kyle. And I've talked to Kyle before. Okay, that's a really good question. I think it's a common question for a lot of people when we're talking about the superimposition of internal rotation on top of external rotation. It's a difficult concept to grasp because the previous model has been this imaginary zero point that exists somewhere based on dead guy anatomy where you have ER on one side and IR on the other. The reality is that they are superimposed and if we can understand this concept then we can understand the sequencing of events that is required for us to make these changes, especially when we're trying to restore relative movement. So thank you Kyle for asking this question. We also talk a little bit about the sequencing of events, about how to resolve some of these superficial compensatory strategies that's near the end of this discussion. So please hang in there for that. It'll be up on YouTube later today. Don't forget to subscribe to the YouTube channel as well so you can be the first to get all of the new videos as they are posted up there. If you have any questions, please go to askbillhartman at gmail.com. If you would like to participate in a 15 minute consult, then please put that in the subject line so I do not delete your email by accident. So again, askbillhartman at gmail.com and then we'll see you all tomorrow. And we are rolling and the clock is running.

Go ahead Kyle. Alright, so I have kind of two questions that kind of overlap like a Venn diagram. They're separate questions that overlap. So if you don't mind, I'll throw both at you and you can take them as you will. My first question is, as I wrote to you last time we spoke, you mentioned how external rotation is a field within which internal rotation has to exist. And that kind of had me thinking about the concept of internal rotation. I know when we need to create force to move through the world, we need to create some sort of internal rotation strategy. So it got me thinking of internal rotation as a point on a plot, essentially a moment in time. Is that correct? Is internal rotation really just a moment in time, and if so, what are the applications? How do we use that as a useful model? And then the other half of the question that overlays into that is: when you have someone with multiple layers of compensatory strategies, like I follow a lot of Zach Long's stuff, and he talks about sequencing of treatment based on how we imagine these compensatory layers are added. For example, if you have the same measurements for someone with a narrow infraternal angle versus a wide infraternal angle, you're going to go about sequencing that treatment differently because of that infraternal angle presentation. So traditionally, I would imagine that for someone with a wide infraternal angle, if they've lost internal rotation-based measures, you'd want to get those measures back. Like if they're compressed A to P, you'd work on that anterior expansion before posterior expansion, which in my mind would recapture a lot of those internal rotation measures. But when I think about this in the concept that internal rotation needs to exist within external rotation, I wonder: would it make more sense to treat these people like we need to get the external rotation measures back first, regardless?

So what do you want to start with?

I guess starting with that first part of like that concept, because it's kind of still a little abstract to me. So just kind of like trying to take it and bring it into a useful.

Let's make ER and IR a simple representation. IR is movement downward into the ground. The reason you move downward is to hold yourself up; you have to push against the ground to stay upright. If I stand on your shoulders, you have to push harder into the ground to hold yourself up because I'm trying to shove you down. That's IR. ER is an expansive strategy that moves you away from the ground, right? It holds you up but reduces your density. If I blow you up like a balloon, you're expanding, moving everything away from each other, which reduces density and reduces how gravity impacts you. So I have a compressive force and an expansive capability. I can't have this outside; there's nothing outside of you that can push you in. I have to create that within the framework, whatever that barrier is—whether it's your skin or your electromagnetic field, whatever we want to talk about. I have to produce force within that because I can't do it outside of me. The forces I produce are inside. That's my internal rotation capability—my pressure downward. I must do that within this framework, however we want to define it. For now, let's say it's within the framework of your body. I have to produce the force within that because I can't do it outside. There's nothing outside of me that I can do it with. That's why internal rotation always stays within external rotation. But if I squeeze you down, I make your space smaller, and if I can't produce anything outside of me, I've narrowed the field within which you can produce internal rotation. It doesn't mean you don't have a strategy to produce force into the ground; it means the more compressed you become, the less relative motions you have available to do this. This is why we see strategies like an anterior orientation of the pelvis that allows continued force into the ground, but that's not relative motion within the pelvis. It's not internal rotation of the ilium producing that position. I've locked everything in due to compressive strategies; progressively, I lose relative motion between segments, and everything starts to behave as one. That doesn't mean I can't push down; it means the way I push down is by putting things together. Say I start with 25 individual segments; through compression, I now have 12. Compress more, and I have eight. So I only have eight places to capture relative motion to create the orientation that allows me to push down into the ground. That's how internal rotation always stays within external rotation.

Yeah.

So it's not an internal rotation of the ilium that's producing that position. I have locked everything in because of the compressive strategies; I progressively lose relative motion between any segments that I can produce and everything starts to behave as one. But that doesn't mean that I can't push down. It just means that the way that I push down, I'm putting stuff together, right? Let's just say that I start with 25 different individual segments and through compression, I now only have 12 and then I compress myself more and now I only have eight. So I only have eight places that I could capture any relative motion to create this orientation that allows me to push down into the ground. So that's how internal rotation always has to stay inside of this extra rotation.

Yeah.

Okay. All right.

Yeah. Makes a lot of sense.

Okay. So, you understand that because again, internal rotation is down, external rotation is up. That kind of makes it really simple.

Yeah.

All you have to do is create a strategy that does one or the other. Right. Okay. Yeah. Restate your second, the second half of your question.

So the second half is, if we are treating someone with multiple layers of compensation, because if we assume normal compensatory strategies, you're going to say a wide ISA is losing ER measures and should have IR measures. Now, based on what you just said, those IR measures still need to exist within those ER measures. That is correct, sir. Now, if that wide ISA, for example, is also losing those internal rotation measures, is the play to get those IR measures back, or do we need to restore ER measures first and then get IR measures back?

When we talk about creating a space, I didn't indicate where that space had to arise. So any strategy that creates movement into an expanded ER field can be used. For example, if I can create an expansive strategy that moves me away from the ground, I can utilize that to create more internal rotation. This may not always be the best or most efficient strategy if using traditional joint measures as a guide, as I may not get external rotation back based on those measures, but I can still measure a higher degree of internal rotation. So I can redistribute internal rotation. Let me give you an example: lumbar flexion is an external rotation measure that people don't always recognize. If I provide a strategy that increases lumbar flexion, I can then measure more internal rotation against that. While not necessarily the best choice under most circumstances if the goal is to restore relative motions, it does happen. Some folks select activities with the intention of increasing the ER field at the hip joint, but when they measure, they don't gain extra rotation at the hip based on traditional measures. They do gain internal rotation. How is that possible? They've redistributed the internal rotation across whatever ER field they created, or magnified an area of ER compensatory activity relative to normal joint motions, using that as their ER field against which they're measuring IR. Using the pelvis and lumbar spine as an easier example: if I want to expand the ER field of relative motion within the pelvis, I need a counter-neutrated sacrum and an ERd ileum. That would provide extra rotation with the potential to superimpose internal rotation on top. But what if I don't change the relative position within the pelvis but gain lumbar flexion? That's more ER. If I move the hip through internal and external rotation with the lumbar spine flexed, that's ER. As I move into IR, what if the lumbar spine moves into traditional extension as the hip moves into IR, making it look like the hip has more IR? This is how compensatory strategies provide elements of movement. The spine is always moving when you're moving the hip joint—it's just a matter of degree and influence. This is what makes some measures 'dirty' and why we must use our iterations and compare shoulder and hip measures to clarify what we're actually measuring. Those instances where someone has 80 degrees of hip external rotation? That's the pelvis rolling on the table while the lumbar spine turns with the measure. That's how those values are created. I can also create a position oriented into external rotation that allows capturing more internal rotation, again redistributing internal rotation somewhere within the system to access it.

Okay, I think I'm, yeah.

So this is how the compensatory strategies provide us with elements of movement. Let me also make clear that the spine is always moving when you're moving the hip joint. It's just that to what degree is it an influence? And so this is what makes some of our measures kind of dirty and why we have to use our iterations and why we have to use the comparison between shoulder and hip measures to clarify what we're actually measuring. It's like those weird things. When you get somebody with like 80 degrees of hip extra rotation, you go, how do you get 80 degrees of hip extra rotation? Well, you don't. That's the pelvis that's rolling on the table and the lumbar spine is turning with your measure. That's how those things are created. So I could also create a position of orientation into extra rotation that will allow me to capture some more internal rotation. And so a lot of times that happens too. And again, all we're doing is redistributing this internal rotation somewhere within the system to allow us to access that.

Okay. Can I provide you with a more real example? Absolutely. So, in that, for example, of what you're talking about, would an example be, because I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, where someone is in a wide-angle position and they lose internal rotation yet they have external rotation, and you look at a lot of their other measures and you're like, this doesn't really make sense. And then that would be kind of like, of tipping in the thorax.

Talk fast.

So for an example of what you're talking about, would an example be, because I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, where someone has a wide stance and they lose internal rotation and yet they have external rotation, and you look at a lot of their other measures and you're like, this doesn't really make sense. And then that would be kind of like that.

of tipping in the thorax.

1,000%.

So here's the thing that you have to respect when you go from a standing representation to a supine representation on the table, because they're not the same. So there's a couple of potential things that could happen. If I have somebody that is oriented into extra rotation, that's how they create it. Segments are jammed together, so there's no relative motion in the thorax or pelvis. But they can orient the sockets outward to create a field of external rotation. This isn't relative motion, but it's still external rotation. Then they use another orientation—anti-orientation of the pelvis and anti-orientation of the thorax—to capture force downward. That's why external rotation is up, internal rotation is down—simple. But when they lie down on the table, two things can happen. First, they might have so much anti-orientation that they're in the same orientation as in standing, which steals their external rotation on the table. However, if they land on the table and the orientations tip backward, it magnifies external rotations. Now they get a straight leg raise they probably shouldn't have, or shoulder flexion they shouldn't have, or traditional external rotation measures they shouldn't't have. So you see someone with 120 degrees of shoulder external rotation and 10 degrees of shoulder internal rotation on the table. See what I'm getting at? Again, that's what happens. When we think about sequencing, the goal is to restore relative motion in most cases where we're working with people in pain, so we can distribute forces instead of making them focal like we would for performance. When we're trying to restore relative motions, the way to strip away these compensations is in the same sequence they were applied. For example, with a wide inter-scapular abduction (ISA), the last compensatory strategy in the thorax is often posterior lower compression. If we don't address that posterior lower compression first, that's our initial external rotation representation—like when reaching upward. We have to restore that first to expand the external rotation field. Then we can address more anterior strategies to restore internal rotations. It's not as simple as it seems. To simplify, we prioritize orientations first, because without restoring the capacity to reorient the pelvis forward and backward, there's no shot at restoring relative motions. You can't do it. When segments are oriented that way, everything's compressed into one unit, so there's no potential to restore the eccentric orientation required. So orientations first, external rotation somewhere in the sequence it was laid down, then internal rotation superimposed on top. If we're looking at a wide ISA with anti-orientation, we restore the capacity to move the pelvis forward and backward through space—essentially teaching posterior orientation. We expand the external rotation field from the bottom up, as that's how the lungs fill. We restore it from the bottom up—starting with the posterior lower thorax to get expansion there—then we can go after something like pump handle to get internal rotation. Does that make sense?

I don't have the potential to restore the eccentric orientation that is required. So orientations first, ER somewhere, right? ER field somewhere, sorry. ER somewhere, usually in the sequence in which it was laid down, and then IR superimposed on top of that. So again, if we're looking at a wide ISA with anti-orientation, restore the capacity to move the pelvis forward and backward through space. So basically I'm anti-leuranted. I'm gonna teach them how to posterior orient. I'm gonna expand the ER field, usually from the bottom up. That's how the lungs fill. I'm gonna restore it from the bottom up. So now I'm thinking like posterior lower thorax, I gotta get expansion there. And then I can go after something like pump handle and get the IR. Does that make sense?

Awesome. Thank you. And I hope there's not a capacity limit on the amount of these we could do.

We'll figure it out. Don't worry, man. Don't worry. Have a great day. So all those people that poo poo machine training really need to rethink their thought process if hypertrophy is the goal. Again, if you don't really care about movement capabilities, by all means you better be doing some machine training. If hypertrophy is the goal, there are advantages there. Don't care how you get the stuff in there. They just respond to a stimulus. Good morning. Happy Tuesday. I have no coffee in hand and it is perfect. All right. Man, I am feeling good. I'm still pretty fired up after yesterday's IFAS university call. We had a great call, went about 90 minutes, so it's a little bit longer than we usually go. The questions were so good. These guys are getting so good. They're using the model to an extensive degree, and they're doing it actually quite well. So it's been really, really fun to see that evolution. If you're not part of IFAS university, you are missing out. So we're going to dig in today's Q&A. This is with Ben, and it's all about powerlifting. Ben works a lot of powerlifters, had some great questions. We basically dissected the whole lever pulley concept and why it doesn't really apply to human beings. And then how does this perspective affect how we look at things in powerlifting? So that was really, really fun and industry. But we covered hypertrophy. We talked about arching scapular position in a bench press. White Arnold's chest is still the best chest that's ever been in bodybuilding. So we covered a lot of ground here with powerlifting. Ben was the last caller today, so we actually went long. He was pretty excited about that. I was having a great time. So this is actually a really, really fun call. Please watch it all the way through. I think it's about 26 minutes. But lots of good stuff in there. Thanks to Ben for your participation. If you would like to get on a 15 minute consultation call, go to askbillhartmanedgeemail.com, and put 15 minute consultation in the subject line so I do not delete it. Or if you just have a regular old question, go to the same email address, askbillhartmanedgeemail.com, and leave me a question and we'll try to address that for you. All right, you guys have a great Tuesday, I will see you tomorrow. We are rolling, clock has started, fire away, go. Go, go, go.

Okay. So based on my current understanding, there are no levers in the body because bones don't touch under normal circumstances. Yes. And so when bones do touch bad things tend to happen. So given that information, I'm looking to specifically visualize, because sometimes I have a hard time visualizing things even though conceptually maybe they come a bit more easily. So for something like the lat or the pec, a lot of people who are in this hypertrophy world where we're looking to take origin to insertion, line of pull, we're trying to manipulate all those things, axes of rotation. How does the model sort of fit into hypertrophy? And I know you've discussed hypertrophy on sort of the level of your model before, but for something like a single arm lat pull down or just anything with the pecs, those two muscles really, from a visual perspective, look like they're using the rib cage as leverage and I've heard a lot of people say that the rib cage serves as a fulcrum to that sort of rotation. So I was wondering from the perspective of your model how you conceptualize that with fluid movement, because with the rib cage it's a little bit trickier for me to visualize it rather than talking about something like a knee.

Good, good qualifier. Normal circumstances, you are correct.

Yes. And so when bones do touch, bad things tend to happen. So given that information, I'm looking to specifically visualize because sometimes I have a hard time visualizing things even though conceptually maybe they come a bit more easily. So for something like the lat or the pec, a lot of people who are in this hypertrophy world where we're looking to take origin to insertion, line of pull, we're trying to manipulate all those things, axes of rotation—how does the model sort of fit into hypertrophy? And I know you've discussed hypertrophy on sort of the level of your model before, but for something like a single arm lat pulldown or just anything with the pecs, those two muscles really, from a visual perspective, look like they're using the rib cage as leverage and I've heard a lot of people say that the rib cage serves as a fulcrum to that sort of rotation. So I was wondering from the perspective of your model how you conceptualize that with fluid movement, because with the rib cage it's a little bit trickier for me to visualize it rather than talking about something like a knee.

Yeah, yeah, so I totally get where you come from. So first and foremost, let's talk about the lever issues first, okay? The thing that I think is confusing in regards to the representation is that we still have a lot of cadaver based anatomy concepts that we use. And it's not that they're not useful. So there are times where that model helps us visualize things and discuss things. So I can still talk that model if we need to make a point because there are there are things that we pull against to create a shape change. The thing that you got to recognize, so when you look at like the way that a ladder a pack attaches to the humerus and produces the shape change in the turns that we would talk about, you got to understand that that thing is surrounded by water. And that's something that a book can't show you that. And a dry cadaver dissection can't show you that because dry dead guys do have levers, okay? And that's why that model exists is because, and like I said, it's useful for an understanding of how some of this stuff is produced. But now put a water balloon and then stick all that stuff inside the water balloon. And that's literally we're creating these fluid shifts. When we're creating areas of density, what we do is we slow the motion down in that area. Right? So you have one area of the body that moves faster than the other. And so that's what's producing this relative motion between a segment that is moving and one that appears to not be moving. It's just moving slower. And then we have cancellation out of directions. Right. So, so if I have, if I have two, two sides that can turn in opposition to one another, so they can both internally and externally rotate against one another. Right. So if I want to turn left, they both turn in the same direction. If I want to turn right, they both turn in the same direction. If I want to internally rotate, they turn towards each other. They cancel each other out and my force goes down. If I want to actually rotate, they both turn away from each other and they go up. So now, I can see the light bulb going off in your head, right? Now you start to see where this stuff happens. And so what you're doing is, remember, ER and IR are always occurring at the same time. Right. So if I'm if I'm seeing motion occurring, I have established a field in which I can move. So that's my extra rotation field. And then I superimpose the IRS on top of that. Okay. But understand that. Okay. So if you are, um, you've done dynamic effort bench presses before, right?