Hi alophysio

Seems a bit redundant to reply after so long but seeing how I've come our of hibernation then here goes:

Yep, I guess it does depend on definition and maybe initiator was a poor choice of words and maybe prime movers or force couple or something like that would have been more apposite. I agree with you regarding 'thought/intention', and 'preparatory movements' as being part of the movement although I find it interesting to ask where does it end in terms of what is involved in the whole movement? Do we hold our breathe, make conscious or unconscious associations with "unrelated" events -cognitive or unconscious, squint, or use a host of other parasitic movements as part of the movement, or preparatory to the movement. I'll keep wondering.

As far as I know, the wisdom is that TA and MF are s'posed to be activated prior to the global mm being activated otherwise there is undue strain on the spine, (or whatever it is that is stressed by the instability (?brain)) which is implicit in what you are saying. With dysfunctional stabilisation the timing is awry, so the TA and MF are activated too late and as you say, getting the sequencing/timing right is the important thing. Hodges used to teach that getting the core activated in isolation is the first step in the sequence of 'core, global mm, then functional movement'.That's the theory as I understand it and seems like we all agree some version of that.

As for supine being difficult to get TA contraction due to thoraco lumbar extension then you may well be right but I guess there would be a host of other reasons as well. The point for me is that it doesn't really matter what position we train the patient in as long as we have isolation as a starting point to progress from. In my experience it varies from patient to patient (which I think is what alinguyen was saying) so it is a matter of being flexible in how it is taught. Part of that flexibility means recognising some patients just ain't gonna get it and making the best of it.

Now what was the original posting about??

On another tangent, I think Peter O'Sullivan from WA has done some interesting stuff of late on core stability and related it to the effect on sacral movement and the role of the pelvic floor mm, connection to Wikipedia reference-linkSIJ dysfunction, and how they all inter-relate. Not sure about the details/accuracy of that. I remember some time ago hearing from a colleague (now that sounds really reliable doesn't it) that Paul Hodges was conceiving of core stabilisation as just tapping into a pathway (what sort??) rather than being a biomechanical mechanism but I can't remember the details. Then there was someone else talking about the role of iliopsoas as being part of the stabilising mechanism and so on and on and on ... Interesting that when Beryl Kennedy was around teaching dynamic abdominal bracing (DAB) (anyone remember her and DAB?) that it allegedly produced great results as well. It utilised activation of external obliques as the mechanism to "stabilise" for those of you who were too young to know about it. Holy Sheet - that's probably most of you!!!! Anyway, why was that? It certainly didn't isolate TA or MF? Maybe it activated pelvic floor or tapped into "The Pathway". Interesting. Perhaps another lesson in 'The more we know the more we don't!' Then there's the old stand-by of 'it is the belief of the therapist that is all important'.

Aaah! dinner calls