Regarding what you said about “muscle tests” and AK reminded me of a q and a Mel Siff put forth that I’m not sure anyone had good answers to! Maybe you or any of the group could enlighten us in lieu of the original question about ART vs AK.
"What follows is all from Mel.
The controversial subject of isolated muscle testing arises regularly and is regarded with undeserved acclaim by some. Unfortunately, these tests, often relying on a wondrous array of ingenious toys and technology, are sometimes performed as if the muscles and joints act independently of the nervous system. It is well known that posture and balance are the result of structure and function, and that muscle “weakness” may have far more to do with underlying nervous processes than intrinsic muscular insufficiency. Let us consider some basic questions regarding isolated muscle tests, whether performed manually or by the use of various technological devices:
-
What do these tests reveal on a person who is under general anesthesia?
-
What does passive movement of a limb tell the tester under such conditions?
-
Do the muscles reveal the same “imbalances” for deviations of a few degrees from the prescribed test positions?
-
Do these tests reveal the same “imbalances” if we perform selective blocks at different levels of the spinal nerves by injecting local anesthetic?
-
Do these tests reveal the same “imbalances” if an adjacent joint is flexed, extended, adducted or abducted?
-
Do these tests reveal the same information if the test is carried out with slow, fast and ballistic muscle action?
-
Do the same “imbalances” occur when the entire limb or body is carrying out a complex sporting skill?
-
Do the tests reveal the same “imbalance” if the patient perceives any part of the movement to be painful?
-
Do these tests reveal the same “imbalances” if the stretch reflex is strongly elicited during any stage of the movement?
-
Do these tests take into account any learning effect which may distort the results?
-
Do these tests totally eliminate the possible effects of fatigue, especially subjects whose static strength-endurance is already compromised?
-
Do these tests reveal imbalances which may become significant only when maximal force, maximal endurance or maximal range of movement occurs?
-
Do these tests distinguish between muscle weakness and neurological dysfunction?
-
Do these tests distinguish between central and peripheral nervous factors which may underlie the muscle “imbalance”?
-
Do these tests make allowance for the existence of conditioned reflexes (operant and respondent conditioning of muscle actions) which influence the pattern of muscle movement?
-
Do biomechanical tests always agree with the apparent results of muscle tests?
-
Do these tests explain why athletes with apparently clear evidence of “imbalance” often are able to effectively and safely produce exceptional performances?
-
Do these tests always display high levels of reliability, repeatability and accuracy?
-
Do the identical muscles always become involved in the same way during every repetition of the test?
-
Do the tests take into account the fact that different muscular contributions may produce the same joint action, especially in complex multi-articular movements?
-
Do the results of isolated muscle tests correlate strongly with tests of complete sporting actions?
-
Do these tests distinguish between the many different types of “strength” fitness, such as starting-strength, acceleration-strength, maximal strength, maximal power, rate of force development (RFD), deceleration strength and eccentric strength?
If one ponders all of these questions in the light of current biomechanical research and clinical findings (e.g. in various issues of Exercise & Sports Sciences Reviews & the Journal of Biomechanics), it will be noted that the answers to the last 20 yes-no questions is no. This offers some pretty sound reasons for seriously questioning those traditional tests.
Isolation testing may certainly have value in limited clinical or pathological situations. If some muscle is ruptured in a linked system, there is no doubt that isolating which muscle is damaged is entirely relevant. However, if no such trauma is evident from pain, swelling or severe disruption of movement, the use of isolation testing simply because one suspects “muscle” weakness or “imbalance” in an athlete, becomes a less definitive tool.
Even though such isolationist testing may identify which component in a linked chain may be implicated in some neuromuscular pathology, it will not necessarily give definitive information about what may be happening in actual complex movements or where the joint acceleration has nothing to do with the muscle being tested.
It is well known that torque or acceleration about a joint may be due to the action of a muscle which does not span the joint concerned or even serve as a classical “prime” mover, assistant mover, etc. (e.g. Zajac F & Gordon M Determining muscle’s force and action in multi-articular movement Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1989, 17: 187-230)
It really is time that more definitive tests were developed and that the shortcomings of the older tests stimulated more research into their revision. The old ones may play a limited and useful role in cases where isolation of a single joint clearly is involved in a clinical condition, but they do not necessarily extrapolate at all well to the realm of multi-dimensional sport. What is the alternative? Evaluation of the sporting actions themselves (and partial lifting exercises), performed at increasingly more demanding levels of stress is one such method.
References
Siff M C (2003) Facts & Fallacies of Fitness
Siff M C (2003) Supertraining
Supertraining Forum Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/