Hi Bill and Chris, great video i found it fascinating. Knowing how well athletes can perform without effective relative movement, what would be the benefit of giving them the ability to relatively rotate (or improve ER or IR measures)? Especially if they aren't experiencing pain. On one hand by doing this you are giving them the ability to absorb force more efficiently across each joint (which may reduce injury risk), but as alluded to in the video it comes with trade-offs in performance. Where does this leave the coach in terms of applying interventions to help movement quality?
Adaptive resources are limited. Performance adaptations mean something else may be in deficit. Periodic/cyclical recovery of relative movement may prevent undesired changes (pressure, tension, reduced blood flow/nutrition to tissues, etc) with long term consequences. You're still playing pin the tail on the donkey with a moving donkey.
More relative motion will lead to better recovery. Less compression, less stress on system, etc. As long as you are keeping up with your performance KPIs you can know you are helping or hurting.
Don't stop me now At some Olympics you could see riders competing at the age of 70! :o What about race walking, there must be some proper curve magnifications in the spine..
Queen, to many great songs to make from with this band. Would definitely depend on the situation. You have to throw Bohemian Rhapsody in the mix, you’re my best friend, Killer Queen
