Thanks for the feedback, Damien. Appreciated!

You are spot on, after chasing different approaches for a long time, I now often find it difficult NOT to take into consideration the findings from neuroscience perspectives. It also fits perfectly with evidence from ie. Tuttle et al, that within-treatment changes are predictive of end-treatment changes, but ONLY in those parameters measured. The research group thus highlight the importance of functional reassessment markers, but from a totally different approach than the neuroscientists. I find this match very appealing and clinically helpful! Totally agree that it seem (and often is) time consuming as I find it needs a different level of patient compliance, but it does bring things better into light.

LOL, in regards to "muscle imbalances", I'll probably never be able to wrap my head around that one. I don't often find muscle imbalances as in tonic/phasic terms to be very helpful, as it's often based on a set of assumptions and not on "clinical evidence"? Not that I dismiss the relevance, but I've become more confident with the terms of inadequate motor patterning/control as a result of altered neuro-output being a consequence of dysfunctions and pain (didn't really express that very well - bear with me). Anyway. Seems like our profession is expanding as more clinically relevant evidence is put forth, and I think physio's (and other practitioners that are willing to look into it) have a very interesting future ahead.

Kind regards,
Sigurd Mikkelsen