You see what you did?

Okay.

Well, context makes everything easy because we can say in this representation, we have this, and then we can actually give a demonstration of the rules. So just gotcha.

So would you say that the tissues are still stiffer at the top with a band? Absolutely. Decrease?

That makes sense. And so I'm going to mess around a little bit with that increase the speed of gravity, like I said, and pull it into something and then stop. That means a lot out of the basketball guys from a jumping standpoint, that transition of vertical to horizontal movement. So I'll pull them into it to the point of no stretch on the band. And so they can come out. If you had mentioned to me, like you said, if you had to stretch on the band when trying to put your foot into the ground and trying to jump, you're defeating the purpose because you're increasing the time now. But you can get that the speed of increase, and then take the resistance away to get that transition, and that's where it's at. And that's actually what gangbusters for us. It's been the same. We've got eight creators dunking basketballs now. It's nice. It's been really cool. That's awesome. That's awesome. Yeah. A lot of times I'll say, hey, we'll do a Zercher squat or something. Buff it, elevate it, or heal it, elevate it. utilizing that band as resistance. A lot of times that's just because of the strengths. Like they don't have a cable. They don't have anything like that. Yeah. Is that, is that still like, is there, would it be, so like, say they're getting pulled into it versus like, say maybe being behind and you dropping down as an assistance, like forward motion thing, would that be any difference? Like how would that make a difference? Does that make sense? I have a hard time visualizing that.

That's huge. I know.

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. So now we have to come up with a plan that offsets the negative consequences in regards to movement that your desired activity creates.

Atcha.

How are you measuring underpowered relative to what?

Yeah. You turn it towards the front leg. You're creating a yielding strategy on the back. But I also heard you talk about if you pull the knee in, you're bicing yourself towards internal rotation.

Okay, so do you have 45 minutes or do you have an hour? It's 15 minutes. Okay, so you only have time to talk about four things. That's all you have time for. You're going to try to jam all of that information into 45 minutes? That's a three and a half day course, right? There's no way that you're going to be able to express that information to any degree of usefulness.

because I was thinking of the lateral rolling and stuff like that. And yeah, so I try to incorporate like if I reach and press and not heavy.

What's the intent?

Okay, so I would argue that we never really know what the mechanism of change is. Because we associate that with an intervention and the intention and then what are the probabilities? So number one, to identify whether you're getting the change that you want, you have to know what change it is that you're shooting for. So you have to have an intention first and foremost. Then you have to intervene in some way shape or form based on whatever it is that you've got in your head as a representation of what this person is capable of doing, how the system interacts. And that's whatever model that you use. And then you apply the intervention and then you retest and you say, okay, that was good. I'll do more of that. Or that was not good. I need to not do more of that. So there's a lot of all of these things that we do that are determined just through the interaction. Because again, we're not predictive outside of a small range of behaviors. We're not very predictive and people aren't very smart. We just don't know stuff. So the way that we figure stuff out is we do something and then we see what happens. And we can discuss mechanisms. There's a lot of influences. We can talk about the nervous system. We can talk about pressures and we can talk about volumes and fluid shifts and sensory inputs and all of that. But when are they not active? Like every single one of them is active all the time. You just don't know which one you're influencing the most. And I always say this. It's like, I don't know why my patients get better. I just play probabilities. And if you can get comfortable thinking that way, then you'll do a whole lot better. But if you start thinking that you're changing tissues, when you're not changing tissues, and if that's your model, then you fail a lot because the chances of you changing that in some acute way is slim to none. That's why you'll hear me use the word behaviors, because behaviors change instantaneously based on context. You have constraints. Some of them are the physical structural constraints that do change, but they change over a long period of time. And then you have the stuff that is, like I said, practically instantaneous. When you talk about neurotransmitter release and again, emotion and behavior, that stuff changes instantly. And movement has a very strong element of that type of behavior. That's why we can change it quickly. Thankfully, otherwise we'd be kind of screwed. So what position would you expect to see at the highest level of force production into the ground? What would be your thought process on that?

Yes, exactly. Because there's nothing under the bar, right? So how do I create stuff under the bar? I take both scaps. I compress them against the posterior thorax. I shove you forward. I internally rotate. That's my force producing position, right? I'm producing force up into the barbell. So I'm turning inward. I'm internally rotating. My head's going to go forward because I'm compressing dorsal rostral. I am pushing the lower cervical spine forward and I'm pulling my head back in response to that, but I have to have the expansion anteriorly one because I need IR and I need space. I need an expansive thorax underneath the bar to stack the weight on top of. Otherwise, I can't do it. So again, it's like, when you say, is it the same? It's like, okay, what are we doing? What's the shape that we're creating? How much load is there? If I'm in a, you know what a T pushup is? It's like a, it's like a side plank where your, you know, arms are out to the sides and you're doing the, you know, like, like you go from push-up position and you rotate into the, to the side plank. It's like, how much expansion do you have there on that loaded side? Not very much because there's a lot of pressure there, which means I have to IR that, but if I'm laying on the table and I can expand, then maybe I have a little bit of ER there too, that's going to allow me to move into horizontal abduction. So that's why we can't, that's why I am so adamant about killing this arc concept, right? Which is probably my fault because I drew it on a white board, which is two dimensional. And so everybody says, oh, it's a flat plane and it's an arc. No, it's a space that moves depending on what shape you are.

Why? Let's do it.

Okay.

Wait, I'm thinking too far ahead. I love that. Thank you. That's actually super helpful.

Let me explain. When you examine a kinesiology book's coverage of this area, it identifies these as the external rotators. However, this changes when you perform movements like hip flexion. As the structures connecting the femur to the pelvis move into any degree of traditional hip flexion, their direction of pull changes, making them internal rotators. When they become internal rotators, they cause the femur to follow that rotational path. Therefore, a more anterior orientation results in greater external rotation loss. This is why the external rotation measurement is such a useful indicator for anti-orientations. By comparing both sides, you immediately gain a clear picture: for instance, if the left side is more forward, it indicates the person is pushing more from the backside, leading to a flatter orientation. Conversely, if the right side is more forward, it creates an oblique tip. Remember that there are many straight-ahead and oblique orientations, and one can create infinite directional variations between these two extremes. This explains the varying degrees of external and internal rotations observed throughout.

Got it.

Yes. It's not easy.

So what would be most specific to training your lockout?

So this is assuming that they can go down, they can bring the bar down vertically.

Okay. You're married, right? Yes. Okay. How did you figure out that she was the one? Well, a lot of exposure. Yeah. Yeah. Or you go on The Bachelor, right? The Bachelor TV show. And that's how you find the right one, right? You just weed them out. No, it's exactly the way you describe it. And everybody wants a shortcut process. And the reality is, is that you've got to get to know this person. How do they respond to certain elements? If you're dealing with the pain issue, obviously you have to induce enough adaptability to alleviate that first. And then you just start to superimpose the performance aspects back on and then you monitor for the changes. You kind of know where they started, which is really, really good because again, now you have a comparator from a performance aspect and you say, you know what, if I get close enough to that presentation, chances are our performance is gonna go up, but that's gonna be my indicator that I'm probably getting too close to where that they start to create their own interference. But this is why it's hard. This is why we don't have great answers or predictive capability because we just don't know. So I think that you've got to date your client a little bit and find out if she's the one. I mean, seriously, it's unfortunate. It'll be really nice if we had these hard and fast rules. You know, say, oh, when you have 17 degrees of hip internal rotation, that's bad. I don't know. Is it bad? What if it makes her faster? Right? You know, but maybe, you know, 15 degrees and now you've got interference. How are you going to know? You measure a bunch of stuff. You create the adaptability to alleviate anything that is interference, and then you re-superimpose everything. You just bring them back. That's ultimately what the return to play process is. I don't think return to play is very special. I don't even think we need a concept called return to play. We usually just call that training. Right? It's just that, where's your starting point? So if somebody's coming off of a surgery or an injury, right? They're just starting at a different place than somebody else that doesn't feel pain. But if we monitor them the same way, that's gonna be the best way to figure out what is the desired outcome.

Take every negative side effect associated with lumbar flexion and count them up. The difficulty people have is distinguishing between the two. Once you've seen both, you'll identify the difference. The cool thing is you've probably already seen this and watched it change for the better just by watching guys add more weight to the bar. If you've ever seen a guy squat 400-500 pounds and watch him warm up with 135 lbs, it looks horrendous. By the time he reaches 400-500 pounds, he has a really pretty squat because now he can use a yielding strategy—his tissues are stiff from heavy lifting, so when he squats without load, he has to use a posterior orientation. But with weight on him, he demonstrates a yielding strategy with proper yield in the pelvis, sacrum, and lumbar spine—the way it should be in a good squat. Do you understand?

Right. I think the 'look funny test' is a very useful test because something catches your eye and you realize that's not really what you were shooting for. I think it's fair to make that judgment as long as you're making a safe-to-fail experiment. You never want to compromise anybody and put them in a situation where they're going to get hurt. But I think the eyeball test works. Have you read the book Outliers?

Have you seen my silly putty example?

Gotcha. Okay. An ISA question. Ever heard of it? I've seen this presentation a couple of times this week. With testing, it presents as narrow, but my hands are so far apart from each other. And they all have different histories. There are a couple of them that had past pregnancies that were an issue, and others that don't have that easy of an explanation as to why you can explain what's going on. I actually ran this by Campo because I had a question, but I was trying to decipher whether to trust my hands or if whatever changed anatomically is going to change our expectation of what's going on at the Axial Skeleton.

I have a client, female, with a narrow stance, typical presentation. She goes down two inches in a goblet squat and then drops, with knees caving in and everything. It's really a sight to see. From a progression standpoint, would you recommend box squatting with the goblet still held anteriorly, or would you recommend some sort of back squat variant to reinforce more compressive strategies?