Dorsiflexion inversion.

Okay.

That's exactly right. You'll see it in a squat. And so that's one of the values of having people do complex movements is that that's their tell. So if I see somebody that posteriorly orients a pelvis and I see the expansion in the lumbar area as they descend into the squat, guess what strategy they're most likely going to use when they don't have full relative motions in the pelvis as they're walking? Can you see it? And then if you know that, and let's just say you threw them up on a table and you're doing table tasks, what would you expect the external rotation in the hip to look like under those circumstance?

Take a box squat. And if you do a full load on a box squat, you're going to yield more than if you did a touch and go. So if I want somebody's connective tissues to behave more stiffly, right? So what I might do is I might say, okay, de-load to the box first, and then spend less time on the box, and then less time on the box, and then touch and go, and then, and you see where I'm getting at? You can also do this where you would do like, maybe I'd jump up to another box where you would start them on just a simple box squat, de-load, less time on the box, touch and go, and then jump, right? So I'm sort of ramping up the stiffness, if you will, versus somebody that's going from like a full yielding action that might be what we would deem less than ideal. So somebody that might be like a tall slender volleyball player that might have a lot of eccentric orientation, a lot of yielding capabilities, but not a lot of turnaround. So the vertical jump is a little bit lower than you would like it to be. And so again, you transition them into a faster and faster loading representation. So the tissue becomes stiffer. And then you turn that into the more explosive activity.

They moved on the oblique to the right.

All right. Thank you very much. Very helpful.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, nah, that makes sense.

Yeah.

Thanks, Bill.

What was that?

That's not everybody's here for you, Grace.

I got two minutes. Gotcha.

So what's the answer to your question?

Well, I don't know if it's unfortunately under, under many circumstances.

Right.

For the sake of time, how about I touch on some of the examples I listed in the paragraph? As far as the main question, when I just look at your model and I continue to sit with it and think about it and try to make sense of it, because it is so different from all the stuff I've learned about anatomy and biomechanics and all that stuff, it's very different. But even though it's challenging my mind, it also is resonating with a lot of other things that I've learned about the fundamental nature of nature. It's very ambiguous. Gradience is really what we're dealing with here. Things like entanglement, quantum entanglement, that all deals with this concept or exists on this idea that everything's connected. And when you talk about gradients in a joint space, ER and IR occurring simultaneously, but with varying degrees, that just sounds a lot like some of the stuff I hear particle physicists describing when they're talking about how things actually work. And it seems like your model describes how things actually work a bit better, even though it's strange. It seems to be in line with the strange stuff that seems to explain the nature of the universe the best. So that's where I'm like, I'm simultaneously confused, but also recognizing that I'm on the right track when looking at your material. My main question is how did you come upon such a cohesive model? Did you actually try to make it fit in with the governing ideas or was it just by chance? Like as you, like for example, the rib cage, when you look at the helical structure or helical angles of a rib cage, I've never heard anybody say something like that. And when you talk about how we can, the, principles that govern the structure of a tetrahedron and, you know, helical angles on the micro scale, those same principles can apply to the macro scale when we're talking about our rib cage. So that's also just shows me that you're on to something that's a little bit closer than what a lot of other people have been talking about because you're considering all the stuff that isn't just right in front of our face, you know, the less intuitive stuff.

It depends. So now we have to start talking about how we've cued this to create that. So if I'm trying to create a yield on the right side with a right foot forward in a front foot elevated split squat, I have to acquire a position of early propulsion at the top. This unloads the front leg, giving an advantage to create the yielding action because it's less load, which means the rate will probably be slower. The magnitude of load is lower, so the tissues will be able to yield. That's a good thing. But now I have to create the pelvic orientation that allows me to capture the yielding action. That requires relative motion between the sacrum and the ilium. So with a right foot forward lead and trying to create a yielding action on that side, I need the position of external rotation that gives me the yield. That means I need to turn the sacrum to the right, so it faces the lead foot. Under this circumstance, I have a counter-rotated sacrum on the right side, an externally rotated ilium, which sets up my advantage to initiate the split squat with the early propulsive strategy—the yield on that side. Now, if I want yield at the bottom where I'm biased towards internal rotation, I have to maintain that orientation. What will happen is the sacrum will always move towards rotation as I descend. It's inevitable. You'll see me go from a counter-rotated position at the top to a rotated position as I descend, and the whole pelvis will turn. So I'm distributing the yield from within the pelvis to the relationship between the pelvis and the femur at the bottom. As I come back up, I redistribute it through the pelvis. So I get this cool relative motion at the top, then the pelvis locks into one position at the bottom. I'm just distributing the yielding action throughout the system. It's almost like a selective yielding action—relative motion within the pelvis at the top, no relative motion at the bottom, but relative motion between the femur and pelvis as separate units. You see how it changes? This is a big deal because if I don't have that capacity at the bottom, I have to use a compensatory strategy, which means I'll see someone orient their pelvis, a wicked side bend, or a poor in-and-out movement. They'll have to stand up to distribute the force, or you'll see someone who looks loosey-goosey coming in and out.

Yeah.

I think she's early. She's more towards her heel.

Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Yeah, that's excellent. That's all I need to know.

Okay, considering the conversations we've had about this, you've made really great progress, but now you're upping the intensity. And you're not 18, no offense—you're not 18, which means you probably just need a little bit more preparation. But again, it's like you've got to catch the IR representation at speed and then shorten the duration of application. So, what I would do is look at where you felt the best so far, okay, prior to the Achilles becoming more sensitive again. And then chop that up between where you want to be based on where you are today, and then start to create some activities that allow you to shorten the amplitude, so the duration of contact, and then progressively increase the amplitude, but don't increase the time.

In terms of what?

I love everything you're saying.

So, I just changed the orientation of the earth and then I'm going to stand on that earth with a foot. Okay. What position are you actually creating with the brand?

Go ahead. So in addition to the torture of her hamstrings, what she was reporting was IT band tightness, like lateral knee just felt very tight on the left side when she was doing it, but not on the right. We were able to get it to go away immediately by noticing that on both sides, her toes and her foot were oriented into external rotation by just bringing it back to midline. That took away all the tightness, but my question is, if she was doing it on both sides, trying to figure out why she only feels it on the left side and not on the right. Other things of note if it's helpful to figure out what's going on with her: number one, she's someone that I've struggled to get full knee flexion and she hasn't had it ever since surgery. Probably missing about five to ten degrees. Even when I feel like I've recaptured the motion everywhere else, I just can't get that last little bit. And then she has also demonstrated similar lateral knee pain throughout her rehab. She has said like doing any sort of single leg hopping—not as she goes down into loading into it, but on the way back up. We've been able to get rid of that in the last two weeks just working on the proximal orientation she was using with different things, but I cannot get rid of the bridge pain unless it's literally turning the foot.

We deal with a lot of athletes. So obviously that comes with a lot of anterior orientations. For good and for bad. So what I run into a lot of times is difficulty in restoring relative motions due to the anterior orientations, right? And so what I need to do is be more successful in addressing that first and foremost, right? And the distinctions in dealing with it versus with wides versus narrows. So the way I sort of understand things is that it's more of a structural bias for wides. Or they're going to have more compression above sort of that trochanter level, correct? Or no.

Would you say that like, are you doing a lot of breath work, maybe like sideline?

So, so you'll see the compensatory strategy in high level lifters because they have the same problems. Like the only thing that their issue is, is like, they've got like, you know, 300 kilograms on the bar. They're, they're left in like crazy, crazy ways. And so, but they have the same problem. It's like their outlet is pushing up. It hits the constraint. So they're squeezing as hard as they can. And the reason that they stop moving is because the outlet went up, they squeezed in, and then there's no gradient. So what do they got to do? They shift backwards a little bit. They create a little bit more gradient now. They get their pelvis up, and then they can move up and forward. And so you're going to see this in a so-called, I hesitate to use their codes, weaker individual. The people that aren't as trained will do this under body weight circumstances or lightly loaded circumstances. It's the same strategy. It's like the outlet can't push up anymore, so they stop moving. They shift their center of gravity that buys them a gradient. And then they use that gradient to finish the lift because now they've sort of unweighted the outlet a little bit and it allows them to push upward.

You ever see an outrigger canoe?

Probably not. In terms of just like conceptualizing within the model, the difference between like insertional pain versus like mid portion within the Achilles. I'm thinking back to school and like we were never really provided with a reason is like why one pain might show up in one location versus the other is kind of just like a couple of considerations from a treatment standpoint. But like if I'm just even trying to like make assumptions about this presentation before like seeing this person, they're at the point where they're getting insertional pain. Would that be indicative that the bend has made it all the way down to the calcaneus as opposed to the twist just through the soft tissue?