Squats and deadlifts are how I cured my back pain. I recognize that I tend to have a missionary zeal about this subject because I think it has had so many benefits for me...but seriously, if you don't have any health issues that prevent you from doing so, you should be lifting heavy weights with a barbell. Your clothes will fit better, people will be more attracted to you, you'll have more confidence, and you'll be amazed at how strong you become. If you're a healthy adult male under 40, 1 hour a day for 3 days a week will get you to "pick up 400 pounds off the floor with relative ease" within a year.
> If you're a healthy adult male under 40, 1 hour a day for 3 days a week will get you to "pick up 400 pounds off the floor with relative ease" within a year.
I hate to nitpick because I share your enthusiasm, but this claim is not true across the board. Plenty of healthy males won't be able to come close to building that kind of strength in a year. It depends on so many factors like body type and genetics.
While I share the original comment's enthusiasm, I have to agree with your skepticism regarding the timescale. Not only does it not guarantee that level of strength in a year, but it should not even be the goal. The goal of strength training is to be stronger today than you were the day before, and the key to (eventually) getting this level of strength is slow, sustained progress over a long period of time. It's a marathon, not a race. An injured body will not get you stronger.
> It depends on so many factors like body type and genetics.
It really doesn't. What it depends on is your training protocol, and whether you're able to avoid injury or not.
Mark Rippletoe's Starting Strength program, administered by a cautious enough trainer, will get most anyone of those characteristics, healthy adult male under 40, there. It's what Mark does for a living. It may be uncomfortable eating several thousand calories a day if you're skinny, but you can't blame the program for your failure to do that.
I did starting Strength for about 4 months before I got injured, I was well on my way to 400 by that time. I'm not any kind of SS zealot, but I have to, like anyone else whose actually gone through it, recognize the simple effectiveness of the plan. It does exactly what it says on the tin.
I know all about SS and think it's a good program. It doesn't change the fact that some people will not be able to get that strong, or will find it very difficult or time-consuming. This is just an empirical fact. If you want to "no true scotsman" every counterexample and say the person didn't have the right trainer, didn't work hard enough, or didn't drink his milk, I can't stop you. But I've personally seen people do it and not get anywhere close to deadlifting 400lbs. They were just ectomorphs and didn't put on muscle like that.
There's lifting for general health and then there's lifting to get very strong.
One does not need to be able to pick 400 lbs off the floor in order to alleviate back pain. To gain that much strength in a year, a person will have to eat a lot of calories in order to produce the muscle mass necessary for lifting that much weight.
Unfortunately, high caloric intake seems to be correlated with some negative health outcomes. The correlations persist across levels of fitness (weightlifting vs obesity).
Exercise is a great way to reduce pain and improve things like sleep and energy. Lifting weights is a good way to exercise. But, one does not have to dramatically increase calories to see those benefits. You only need a big jump in calories is high strength is the goal.
> > It depends on so many factors like body type and genetics.
> It really doesn't. What it depends on is your training protocol, and whether you're able to avoid injury or not.
And "whether you are able to avoid injury or not" while trying to train up to that goal in the time period suggested depends on so many factors, like body type and genetics.
> I'm not any kind of SS zealot, but I have to, like anyone else whose actually gone through it, recognize the simple effectiveness of the plan.
"Anyone who has experienced X must recognize the simple effectiveness of X" pretty much defines being a zealot for X.
> And "whether you are able to avoid injury or not" while trying to train up to that goal in the time period suggested depends on so many factors, like body type and genetics.
Not so. You get injured when you exceed your body's ability to sustain the load. You have to be aware of those limitations and work actively on building the ability to exceed them. In weight-lifting that means 1) proper form and 2) knowing when to stop. The former is easier to attain than the latter, but if you can do both, then you can avoid injuring yourself while still making gains.
> "Anyone who has experienced X must recognize the simple effectiveness of X" pretty much defines being a zealot for X.
That's ridiculous. I've experienced driving a manual transmission and recognize the simplicity of the system and that it gives you a better connection to your engine than an automatic does. Even so, I drive an automatic. If I had a sports car, I'd want a manual, but not for my primary vehicle.
I've done many, many things to keep in shape over the years. Starting Strength is great, but it's by no means the only or even best way to do that. That would imply perfection, which doesn't exist. What it is is effective at doing what it sets out to do. Which many other approaches and plans don't have.
What's great about SS is that you don't have to throw your whole life into it to experience gains. Just follow the program and you'll get stronger. If you didn't get stronger you weren't following the program. Many of the things I've tried didn't have this property. I took dance classes for a year before I realized I either needed to be rich enough to afford a private tutor or to have been dancing since I was eight to really get it right, and if I'm not getting it right, there are better ways to accomplish fitness goals.
I think these people underestimate what they can already deadlift. I feel like most adult males under 40 could DL at least 200 lbs from the start.
Genetics only play a minor role in how much one progresses unless you count the Y-chromosome. The biggest factor is how much testosterone your body produces. If you're male, you're probably fine.
I'm sort of an SS hater, but it IS a good program for people that are starting from little to no knowledge of lifting.
EDIT: Apparently I'm off around 20 lbs. Most adult men can deadlift over 180lbs it seems.
I spent years lifting weights, and I also believe that most people could deadlift 200lbs from the start. I also believe that once they learn technique, they could increase that to at least 250 without putting on any extra muscle. A big part of lifting something heavy is knowing the right way to lift and which muscles you should be using to do it.
Hell, if you can jump a few times and do two or three pushups, you've already got the muscles needed to deadlift more than your own bodyweight.
Fair correction, I was going off the parent's statement of males under 40.
I'm talking one rep max after warm up. A beginner would be hard pressed to rep nearly that much. My one rep max when I started was 185 and increased to over 300 within a few months. After a year I was maxing at 415, that's where I stopped going any further. I have had (and have seen) massive gains in one rep max just from learning good technique and getting your muscles used to lifting for a week.
I've had +25 lbs to 1RM simply by using reverse grip.
I posted a link to an article that shows the 50th percentile is around 180lbs for males. People always underestimate their deadlift. They don't realize they're using some of the strongest muscles in their bodies.
I think people also don't get a true 1RM on DL because they're scared of hurting something (and admittedly n00bs that aren't cautious often hurt themselves). It takes a month or two of getting comfortable with the technique before you can take your first accurate 1RM.
SS is just very basic. It's great at getting you going but competitive athletes use more advanced programs.
I personally use college football lifting programs. These are built to get the maximum out of athletes in the span of four years and focus on building an all-around athletic strength, not just maxing out the big three lifts. Because of the nature of football, the competitiveness, and the revenue it generates, the lifting programs have to be on the cutting edge. The strength programs tend to be shared only within football circles. The teams keep meticulous track of players' maxes and are constantly tweaking their programs and collaborating with other strength and conditioning experts to get the maximum out of their players. And they actually have the data where they can compare success of last year's program with this year's with a hundred or so data points, which allows them to make faster iterations on their programs.
If you look the numbers that college football players can put up in olys and powerlifting, so many of them technically qualify for nationals in those sports. Even though lifting isn't their main focus. For example, my brother played D-I ball and had a 1,604 lb three lift total by his junior year. That's 243 lbs higher than the collegiate powerlifting qualifier for nationals (in his weight class) and he was by no means a freakish outlier for his team or conference strength-wise. Maybe only a bit above average for a lineman.
How much do you weigh? That plays a big role. I used to lift with a friend who was 6' and weighed 120lbs. He struggled with just the bar (45lbs) initially because he had no muscle mass at all. Your average male under 40 has a decent amount of muscle.
Other than that, there's a lot to be said for a proper trainer who can help get your form right and give you motivation. I would easily lose 20lbs off my max when I was lifting with a partner who couldn't motivate me as well.
Do you know what your actual 1RM is? Or have you calculated via submax?
Do you have good grip on the bar? That can also hurt your DL max as well.
Regardless, there is nothing wrong with being at a lower percentile than others when you start! My first bench max was like 65 lbs. Just keep grinding, man. :)
Fair enough - I wouldn't want to discourage anyone who can't reach that for whatever reason. I would also add that diet and sleep are critical - you'll need enough calories and enough sleep to hit that kind of target.
One of the guys in my gym is a world champ powerlifter but I've only seen him pick up 300 pounds. A lot of us are much lighter than the average American male so a more personal goal might be twice bodyweight.
Are you sure you don't mean kilos? There is no weightclass + lift combo where 300 pounds would be world-class for a male, as far as I can tell, except for the snatch at the lowest weight class (56kg)
Well I posted this because I didn't want some 120lbs kid injuring himself trying to get to 4 plates by the end of the year. But people love to nitpick and argue about powerlifting online.
The guy pulled 400 something at 123lbs, but he just does 3 plates these days.
I second this with a caveat. I have a damaged disc between the sacrum and L5. After several years of back pain and a few visits to the emergency room, I took up deadlifting. I deadlift every other day now and have done so religiously for a couple of years, steadily and slowly increasing the weight. I feel it has been very beneficial for my back issues. I have almost none of the pain I had before.
I feel this is a simple remedy that almost no doctor will recommend because of the liability issues.
With that said, I advise extreme caution. I lift every other morning and I feel it is the most dangerous thing I do. I'm very careful to pay attention to my form and take the movement slow. Even on a good day, I can feel that disc moving around. On a bad day, I've slipped the disc and lost progress for a couple of weeks while I recovered. So if you're going to try this, take it slow.
And I'll second the caveat. I agree with this and the grandparent--if you are in reasonable shape, and want to maintain that, lifting low (< 5) reps and high weight is a great thing. If you do other activities, you could probably lift 30 minutes, two to three days a week, and see health improvements.
But, yeah, think hard about form, and start lifting too light. What does bad form look like? Start with this video:
I agree wholeheartedly with this and I practice it myself - and have my entire life.
However, if your only goal is to remove (or prevent) back pain, there is an even simpler recipe: walking.
Your body is built to walk. Literally. You are a walking machine. Walking will put your body back into order. Posture, circulation, digestion, metabolism (modestly) ... every function of your body was built to respond to the activity you are built to do: walk.
Nothing to learn, no fees to pay, no equipment to buy. Just walk. Bonus: it's mentally stimulating, interesting, and relaxing. Your mind will respond to it just like your spinal column does.
> You are a walking machine. Walking will put your body back into order.
If you've got bad posture, and you don't work to correct it, more walking will more likely exacerbate the problem than magically fix it. Some people will intuitively figure out the right responses to pain feedback to correct some problems, particularly the easier-to-correct ones, on their own.
Better, though, to work with a trainer (either one-on-one or in any of the many fitness walking training programs you should be able to find) and get direct feedback while walking to correct the issues more quickly.
What worked for me was ballroom dance first (with both group classes and private lessons), then adding fitness walking and weight training, but that wasn't a deliberate strategy aimed at back pain, and certainly isn't likely to be a cost-effective strategy if dealing with back pain is the only goal.
Hasn't worked for me. I walk and jog 5-10 miles per week, and I use a standing desk. Doesn't do shit for my back as far as I can tell.
To keep my back healthy I must lift. I watch Kelly Starrett's podcasts and do what he says, but with a quarter of the weight. I ain't no lifter, but the light stuff keeps me pretty spry. Shoulders down and back!
Well, again - I can't argue with lifting, since it is a large part of my life and I am glad you have found success with it.
However, 5-10 miles per week is about the same as nothing in terms of the walking that the human body is designed to do. You can walk about four miles in one hour, and if it's part of your daily routine you'd be doing 20-30 miles per week - even if you skipped a day or two.
I encourage you to try it. Worst case is you get out and see a lot of things and have some nice active meditation for a week or so.
As a side (and anecdotal) note, you still can have bad form while walking due to previous injuries or bad posture. So if you experience lower back pain while walking (as I have in the past) check some videos on good walking technique on youtube or consult with an expert.
> ...you should be lifting heavy weights with a barbell. Your clothes will fit better, people will be more attracted to you, you'll have more confidence, and you'll be amazed at how strong you become.
> if you don't have any health issues that prevent you from doing so, you should be lifting heavy weights with a barbell. Your clothes will fit better
Only if you were wearing poorly-chosen clothes for your existing body before. If you aren't already out on the far extreme of the distribution for height or some set of proportions, you can probably find pretty well-fitting off-the-rack clothes, and if you have, they'll probably fit substantially worse if you change your body shape in any way -- whether its by gaining fat, losing fat, gaining muscle, or whatever.
Unless you're female and then your clothes will fit worse. I have to buy two sizes up in dress shirts and hem the waist down just to fit my shoulders into them.
>Squats and deadlifts are how I cured my back pain
This is sort of the same conclusion drawn by the article. A stronger core supports your back better and reduces chances of developing back pain. Squats and deadlifts are among the best exercises to build a strong core.
Do NOT run to the nearest weight room and start doing squat weights in response to your back pain. Go see a physical therapist. They'll put together an exercise routine that's customized to you, and ease you into it. Address the core issue first. Then, work up to whatever routine you aspire to, for example weights, but it's a good idea to discuss with your therapist first.
Speaking as someone with posture problems, I'm interested by heavy lifting, but very concerned about the potential for injury.
Do you have any stats on how safe it is, particularly vis a vis back injuries? It seems like a bit of a high-risk wager - if you keep good form in EVERY exercise you do, you get stronger and improve your health, but if you screw up once, you damage your back in a very serious way.
Sports injury stats per 100 participant hours in school sports: Powerlifting (USA) 0.0027, Weightlifting (UK) 0.0017 [1]
Among elite competitive weightlifters: Injury rates for
the subset of resident athletes at the USOTC were 3.3 injuries (most frequent were tendonitis and muscle strains) per 1000 weightlifting training hours. [2]
"[It's reported that] weightlifting (is) one of the safest sports with 0.0017 injuries per 100,000 hours of participation" [3]
I've been powerlifting for 6 years, was competitive for three of those years, and am friends with and know at least a hundred serious, amateur, competitive powerlifters and weightlifters. My anecdote, with that background in mind, is that I have only seen or heard of injuries happening when people IGNORE their body telling them to stop. So they either put too much weight on the bar, KNOW that it's too heavy for them, and then push through anyway, or they let their ego get in the way and are trying to show off and screw around (this is far more common than the first scenario).
The thing with free weights of any kind is that it's only as dangerous as you make it. YOU are in control of your form, you are in control of how much weight you use, you are in control of the bar path, and you can take it as slow as you want.
Lifting is actually pretty safe, provided you do it intelligently. But even if you do it recklessly, your body is more resilient that you give it credit for (depending on your age).
The key to strength is longevity. The guy who adds 2.5kg on the bar every session and hurts himself two months later won't end up as strong as the guy who adds 2.5/5kg every three weeks and sustains his progress for 5 years without injury. If you are of a population "at risk" (preexisting condition, etc.) you can set your mind at peace by finding a good coach.
1. Join a Crossfit with good trainers. (Look up the reviews online for each box.) People hate on Crossfit all the time, but I can tell you from my experience they have helped me a ton with technique. I was already a very proficient lifter when I joined, but they were able to critique and fine tune stuff at an advanced level.
2. Get a private trainer that works specifically in powerlifting/olympic settings and explain to him exactly what you're going for.
3. Get involved on /r/powerlifting or /r/weightroom on Reddit. On these threads you can find all sorts of great resources and post videos of yourself for form critiques.
Friday: Squat, Inclined Bench Press, Cable Face Pulls (or another pulling exercise)
Do this for a month and don't worry about how heavy the weight is for a couple weeks, starting with just the barbell. Focus on form (YouTube!) and getting used to the motions.
Go slow. Don't push yourself until you feel comfortable. You can start with negatives or assisted pullups. Hitting a big compound movement (squat/deadlift), a push and a pull is a great rounded way to start lifting.
Unfortunately anything that you cannot do at home easily is not for me - I hate gyms with a passion. Whenever someone tells me how well this worked out for them I consider starting for a second, think of all the implications (no place, too expensive for my apartment => gym) and drop it.
Looking for a decent dumbbell setup for quite a while. Until then I'll stick with running and take up swimming again, maybe.
Have you considered bodyweight training? I much prefer it to weight lifting. I can do it in my home without a bunch of space-hogging equipment. You Are Your Own Gym by Mark Lauren is a good place to start. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0345528581
I have to admit that the excerpt/intro doesn't seem appealing (Army trash, 'Hooya' boxes??) but hopefully that's pure presentation and irrelevant for the content. Browsing the samples on Amazon, this (bodyweight) might be a good idea - and I'll check out related books as well.
Edit: That book at least is not for me. Ignoring the military nonsense the few/uninspiring pages I can read at Amazon contain a 'No, women should not train different than men' section - and Amazon helpfully points me to "Body by You: The You Are Your Own Gym Guide to Total Women's Fitness" which seems to be the same book, by the same author, for .. women. Erm..
Looking into bodyweight excercises in general though - that still seems appealing.
I can't think of a strength program that doesn't have a bunch of embarrassing posturing about becoming a super hulking ninja beast. I found it best to read around and after a while I could figure out what parts of different programs were useful.
In the last few years there have been a bunch of new bodyweight training books published. Convict Conditioning, Your Body is Your Barbell, Your Body is Your Gym, etc. (Apparently these authors are too weak to come up with original titles.) Maybe you can find something written by someone from more of a clinical background.
One thing I will say for Mark Lauren is that his book was the most approachable for me as a beginner. He actually has a beginner program that you don't have to already be very strong to follow. There is an android app as well that was very helpful. The women's version of the book is probably a marketing thing. The publisher is probably right in thinking that many women are unlikely to buy a strength training book unless it is specifically "for women."
I can second this and saw the same benefits. However since I am going to the gym anyway, I add bench and overhead press too. That's it and I am out in less than an hour.
I've had back problems since my early 30's (including surgery) and I knew my posture was poor but never was able to improve it until I started lifting. The key is that I don't think you can strengthen your posture muscles by holding the correct posture. You have to strengthen your posture muscles by lifting heavy objects on a weekly if not daily basis then you can easily hold correct posture. As the article mentioned the key is to flex the gluts to hold posture and the deadlift and squats are efficient ways to build glut strength. So in the end the reason why indigenous people don't have back problems is they are not sedentary and have stronger gluts.
While I take care to contract abs at all times and keep a straight back during SQ, DL and MP, I have been getting some lumbar pain/discomfort. Not when I lift. But typically 1 or 2 days after.
Sleeping is not optimal either as muscles contract. As of lately I find myself sleeping on my side. I know it's the advised posture, but some years ago I could sleep (ie: eventually wake up) with my stomach down with no problems. I can still go to sleep that way, but during the sleep I end up switching position -- and I'm aware of it because I "wake up" for a brief second or so.
Anyway, do you have any tips? Do you ever get sore lumbar spine or overfall back?
Why would anybody want to be able to pick 400 pounds off the floor with relative ease enough to spend 156 hours a year on it? It seems roughly on the same level as spinning a basketball on your fingertip in terms of usefulness.
I agree that in and of itself, it's perhaps not extremely useful in the modern world. However, training up to that level will have benefits in terms of bone density and core strength. It's not clear what you would gain by learning to spin a ball like that. Improved hand-eye coordination, maybe?
You will find quite a few beginner programs that you can make tremendous progress on. Some of the most popular are Starting Strength[1], Strong Lifts 5x5[2], and Ice Cream Fitness (ICF)[3]. Anything with progressive overload/linear programming (adding more weight to the bar almost every workout) will work wonders for you.
I would add "Simple and Sinister" for Kettlebell geeks (like me). Unbelievable level of conditioning can be achieved with only 2 exercises, The Swing and Get-up.
I own and enjoy kettlebells but I didn't actually start getting a lot stronger until I started barbell training.
As you mention kettlebells are fantastic for conditioning but are not the best tools for getting stronger because you can't (easily) progressively overload the amount of weight you are lifting like you can with barbell training.
Yeah, I had a friend that did the most intense kettlebell workouts fairly frequently. I was surprised at how small his gains were compared to traditional weightlifting methods.
Depending on your time commitment, look up Starting Strength and StrongLifts (45min-1h30 3 times a week, strength oriented), Jason Blaha's ICF 5x5 (1h30-2h00 3 times a week, strength/bodybuilding oriented), Dan John's Easy Strength/Even Easier Strength (30min-45min 5 times a week, extremely strength oriented and very simplistic training). Note than Starting Strength/StrongLifts/ICF5x5 will require you to sleep and eat like it's your job. A lot of people stop progressing just because they can't stand the constant eating.
I would recommend finding a reputable gym (e.g. be wary of CrossFit - some are great, some are cash grabs by people who have no idea what they're doing), and pay a trainer for a couple sessions to make sure you have your form right. Having improper form won't really matter when you're starting off with low weight, but as you go heavier it becomes very important, and you don't want to have established bad habits.
The book Starting Strength is often touted as the best way to learn the deadlift, front/back squat, overhead press, and bench press. It has a lot of detail about the posture you want during the lifts, as well as how to increase your workloads until you are Huge(tm). In short, you have a program of lifts you do (sets x reps x weight = work), and you increase your work output every time you go to the gym, which means you need to structure your workouts to allow for recovery but not atrophy.
I highly recommend the youtube videos by Alan Thrall, very good description of the basic lifts and how to have the proper form so you don't get injured.
It's a good 4-days workout program. The goal is to gain mass but it does so by improving strength and endurance, setting up a strong foundation for future workout.
Pretty much agree with this. It worked for me. 10 minutes a week, high intensity, for a couple years, pain was gone in about 2 months and never came back. Just machines, due to getting injured with free weights early, no cardio, no other exercise. Leg press, lumbar, seated row, weighted pull-up, chest press, the occasional bench. Getting stronger is easy and worth it.
I can testify to this. I'm 6'6, turned 30 recently and developed chronic back pain which made walking/standing for over 15-20 minutes painful. I got frustrated and started going to the gym again and doing very basic deadlifts/leg presses/lunges a few times a week. It's been a couple of months and my back is about 70-80% better.
I believe squats and deadlifts helped knacker my back. Just anecdata, but I thought it was worth adding another data point. I'll be reading this article in depth in the hope that it offers a solution because I really don't fancy being mildly disabled for the second half of my life.
The author mentioned in this article, Esther Gokhale, wrote a book several years ago with the somewhat goofy title 8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back, which I can't recommend enough, especially if you suffer from back pain. It really transformed the way in which I think about my posture and ergonomics in general.
One of the things she touched on in the book, which the NPR article seemed to miss, was a hypothesis that poor posture in the Western world is the result of a cultural shift in the early 20th century. Particularly that slouching and unnatural postures were a sort of rebellious statement against the Victorians for 1920's youth.
Bad ergonomics and posture became so hip that they found their way into furniture design - something that became very clear to me after having a herniated disc and a vintage mid-century couch in my living room..
No, actually the entire book is just about comparing photographs of people who live in different parts of the world and how they sit / stand / walk etc.. If you wanted to sit for a few hours with google image search it could give the same conclusions really.
The book is more or less a collection of illustrations and photographs of posture and a some exercises for training yourself to pose more like people who haven't been influenced too much by western culture. The author's background and the stupid title makes it sound like alternative medicine wacko snake oil but it's really not
That's a lot of it, except that it turns out that how to "stand up straight" is very counterintuitive. You will hurt yourself if you just try. Really, the book is not enough; you need the class, or at least the videos. They also teach you better ways of walking and bending.
In my case I was doing physical therapy for back pain at the same time I picked up the book, so while I was being taught how to change my posture and ergonomics by med professionals, the book was a good companion for expanding my knowledge..
So start light. I mean really light. Like lying flat on you back working your core by tensing only specific muscles light. This is how rehab programs start. Then progress. Slowly. Even body weight squats will improve your posture when applied consistently.
If you're acute like that there are a lot of exercises that can make the situation much worse, particularly if you don't have a diagnosis and are unsure of where the injury is located.
Best course of action is go to a Dr and push them to prescribe physical therapy over surgery or meds. Once you know the site of your pain and have a good physical therapist they will give you safe exercises that protect from additional injury. Some lazier doctors will often resort to pain killers or worse, surgery, as a quick solution, but in most cases a few sessions with a good physical therapist is all you need
If you're acute, and prescribed physical therapy but can't stand, it's not going to work either though. There's no problem with being on opiods for a short period of time to relieve the pain, and allow you to take on a proper course of physical therapy, and get the exercise and movement you need.
I certainly did notice that my back hurt a lot less once I started weight training. And as an added benefit, people have commented that my posture has improved. So win-win!
Surprisingly, I think your heuristic may have failed this time! Acupunture is pseudoscience and you would normally be right to disregard it, but in this case what Gokhale does for her day job seems entirely irrelevant. This is an article about real science that happens to have been done by a pseudoscientist. It would be a mistake to let her sketchy profession distract you from her legitimate work.
Gokhale might as well have been a paralegal or an engineer. She is an acupuncturist who had recurring back pain that surgery didn't fix, so she went looking for a different answer in a relatively scientific way. She made observations, formed hypotheses, and tested them. It seems they were informal tests and not clinical trials, and one might argue that more research is needed to justify her conclusions, but at least there's standing to have a conversation. Even bad science is can be productively discussed and criticized -- a low bar that pseudoscience fails to cross. The fact that this science was does by a pseudoscientist shouldn't detract from the actual work.
I'm actually surprised the article isn't more about the acupuncturist who is doing real science than about the particular details of the work. That's the most interesting aspect, and it's not even mentioned explicitly as far as I can tell.
Keep reading; in a shocking display of journalistic competence, the journalist interviews someone else who proposes a sensible alternative explanation for the results the acupuncturist may be seeing.
The aforementioned sensible alternative explanation is currently related to one of my pet theories, which at the moment hasn't got enough scientific evidence to make a call either way, but: My theory is that the reason "standing up a lot" seems to help people is that it builds core muscles up, which do think I have sufficient evidence that at least one American, namely, me, did not naturally have a lot of. This A: suggests that the argument that science is currently in the middle of about "how much standing should one do" is entirely misguided, dealing with a secondary if not tertiary variable instead of the real problems... and there is a LONG history of this in the health field, so it's hardly a crazy idea... B: explains why "too much standing" could be a problem... "standing" isn't "good", it's just that it builds core muscles, and too much of it is independently "bad", and C: if true would suggest that one could obtain the benefits of standing, and probably more, by directly focusing on building core strength instead of indirectly and more inefficiently building it.
I call this a "pet theory" because I believe it to be a reasonable harmonization of several current lines of scientific inquiry, and I don't have the evidence to disprove it, but I also lack the evidence to really solidly prove it.
One can see how it might also relate to this article.
Having had at least my own experience with my own core weakness, it is actually somewhat astonishing to me that my core can become so weak as to be a source of pain even in my mid-30s. It would be natural to assume that the very things causing pain would itself spur the core on to grow stronger, but it seems at least in my experience the core needs "superstimulus" to grow large enough to even competently do its main job. (I'm not saying I'm confused as to why that's the case... if one looks at the history of our species and considers the working of natural selection, it's not an impossible or nonsensical outcome. It just wasn't my first guess.)
I noticed, but looked further. Most people have simoultaneously beliefs of which some are true and some are false. Very educated people don't vaccinate their kids. Which is not to say they are false in any other aspect of life. Indeed, they loose their credibility. But I think it's a matter of critical thinking to be both skeptic and charitable. Otherwise we fall into the classical, but very recent trap: you can't be a scientist and also be religious.
I had the same reaction, but I'm a biologist that cuts code writing server code for a living. I'm rather good at it, and have many graduates, engineers, and a few masters work under my lead. I also know medical doctors that prescribe antibiotics for virus, and PHD's in the sciences that don't understand the basics of evolution or the basics of formal logic.
This early interest in healing led her to study biochemistry at Harvard and Princeton and, later, acupuncture at the San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine.
I agree ... my first thought when I saw the teaser was ... the average lifespan for the pre-morden world was about 25. Back pain is a problem in your 40's - 50's I doubt if a culture will change for such a rare problem. It is like us getting rid of all stairs because people in their 60's aren't as mobile. But then if you are willing to believe in acupuncture you are willing to believe in anything.
FYI, even in the paleolithic era, if you lived past 15, the life expectancy was 54. [1]
Using average lifespan in your argument portrays a world where no-one lives to their 50s. When in actuality, most adults died in their 50s (but there was a very high level of child mortality which brings down the average).
As one that is in and out of PT fairly frequently, I can tell you how absolutely FRUSTRATED PTs and orthos get by people that have lower back pain and want some medication or special chairs or stem, as opposed to buckling down and strengthening their abdominal muscles.
Weak abs = lower back pain. For most cases. In my early years playing football, I used to get lower back pain from the contact. I was weightlifting regularly, but always skipped my ab exercises because I hated them. One year I was like, screw it, I'm going to do these. Abs got strong, back pain disappeared.
This posturing stuff engages your core and helps keep the spine supported properly. If you want faster results, get in the gym and get an abdominal routine going.
Plus look at toddlers and some Asian cultures. They can squat full dept with no problem. My toddler can squat and stand up without issue. I can - but I've retrained myself and opened up my hips/hamstrings and worked on core strength. baby's mama cannot perform a full depth squat let alone with any weight on the or front rack position. The old Asian lady down the street can and does when she does her gardening.
I think that coupled with a lot of people have at least mild APT because of a weak core is the major issue. It causes hip strain.
I took Esther's course in 2013, and it's had a huge effect on my life.
Getting into the correct position involves moving some muscles I didn't know I had, but, once achieved, it feels amazing. Sitting feels like being massaged. I can twist my neck further. When I practice karate, all my movements become faster and easier. The only problem is keeping the posture once achieved, as all your old movements can cause you to revert (and yes, it takes some core strength, but that's a small part).
What the article describes is real science. That makes her a scientist. She's also does acupuncture, which makes her a pseudo-scientist. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and here is a person who is both. That's the real story, in my opinion.
To be a scientist you need to know how to research, thing that takes a minimum of 4 years with the supervision of a senior professor. Also your results need to be reviewed by other researchers... And even with all this process in place many times we make mistakes... so imagine what can I tell you about an acupunturist.
(It's not mentioned in the abstract I linked, but searching Cochrane's site shows that they look at studies comparing acupuncture to a "fake" acupuncture, which is presumably putting needles randomly.)
Well, that appears to be real science about acupuncture. Acupuncture isn't a science based not on whether it works or not (there appears to be some scientific evidence that it can), but rather because it is based on handed-down traditional knowledge and personal experience rather than empirical research.
That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it culture.
Back pain in the industrialized world is overwhelmingly psychogenic. It's Tension Myositis Syndrome as described by Dr. Sarno. Given only x-rays images, spine specialists completely fail to identify the individuals who report back pain. Most people with no back pain have various structural abnormalities.
These people getting back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome were all getting ulcers 60 years ago. Then the idea that ulcers are just an infection took hold so the psychogenic manifestations of stress shifted.
> Then the idea that ulcers are just an infection took hold so the psychogenic manifestations of stress shifted.
It may be that treatments have been developed for those ulcer causing infections. That could be why you're not hearing so much about uclers.
I think the situation might be the opposite of what you're suggesting. It seems ailments that we don't understand are put down to stress. Then we find a physiological cause, and then a cure and then we stop hearing about the issue.
There was a massive decline in diagnosis of peptic ulcers. People just stopped getting them so often in the first place. It's not the case that medicine cured the problem.
> There was a massive decline in diagnosis of peptic ulcers. People just stopped getting them so often in the first place.
Once we understood the causes (H. pylori infection primarily, NSAID overuse secondarily) we were able to manage the second and intervene to control the first based on symptoms that develop before the peptic ulcers.
Additionally, the H. pylori infection rates are much higher in older Americans (H. pylori infections typically have a long lead time before developing any symptoms), probably because of lifestyle changes that have reduced environmental exposure. So with less and less people having H. pylori infection in succeeding cohorts, there's a decline in peptic ulcers.
We know the connection between the causes and the decline. And, yes, some of it is that medicine cured the problem (earlier intervention for H. pylori infections), and some of it is awareness of medicine side effects reduced actions causing the problem (NSAIDs), and some of it is that the age cohort that had been most exposed to H. pylori infection and was most at risk became a smaller share of the population as time progressed.
While Dr. Sarno's theories were helpful for my carpal tunnel, and apparently for many others, I would be hesitant to apply TMS to all back pain, carpal tunnel, and other "office chair diseases." I know you said "overwhelmingly psychogenic", which implies you meant not all cases. But I'm not sure overwhelmingly is accurate either, especially for back pain. With carpal tunnel, it's clear based on the plethora of cures with random success that calling psychogenic may often be right. But back pain has alternative, and seemingly better explainations (weak muscles, poor flexibility). So while TMS may be the diagnoses for some with back pain, and a contributor for others, I would not go around slapping it on everyone who says they experience back pain.
That said, Dr. Sarno's book is worth the cost of reading. It's very staunchly in the pseudo-science camp, and Dr. Sarno spends a lot of time bemoaning his ostracization from the medical community, but his theories are ultimately interesting, hold some weight, and have been helpful to many. For example, I haven't worn a wrist brace to bed since I read the book (about a year ago). And, even if it hadn't helped, it brought more awareness to just how stressed I was. I do a better job managing my workload and consequently stress these days. Just keep a healthy heaping of skepticism by your side while reading.
> Given only x-rays images, spine specialists completely fail to identify the individuals who report back pain.
I'm not surprised. X-rays are not the most reliable in identifying all spinal issues. X-rays are more for finding problems with the vertebra or curvature of the spine, not the discs. An x-ray showing mild degeneration could be produced from the same individual who on an MRI could show a severe disc herniation. I'm not a doctor, but I've worked on developing legal cases for disabled individuals, and an MRI is pretty much mandatory.
Anecdotally, I have a relative who suffered from severe back pain after a lifting accident, but the x-rays didn't show anything. I told him to ask his doctor for an MRI after a number of months, which indeed demonstrated the herniation.
Plenty of people have MRI scans that can show herniated discs. Have a look at [1] for a very clear image of what you can see in some obvious cases. Obviously some aren't as clear as the image below, but mine for instance was.
You have the common and popular misunderstanding of psycogenic illnesses.
>Does this mean that the sickness is “all in my head”?
No, it doesn't. The people who are in these outbreaks have real signs of sickness that are not “imagined.” They really do have headaches, or they really do feel dizzy. But their illness is not caused by a poison or a germ.
I know it's just my own anecdotes but I find that really hard to believe given how painful my back pain has been. It was so painful once and lasted for about a week that I seriously considered that I would end my life if the doctor told me there was nothing they could do.
For me, at least recently, the trigger seems to be lifting something heavy and wrong way. It doesn't hurt that day but the next day I literally can't move in certain directions without searing pain. Just turning in bed, getting in or out of bed, getting in or out of a car, walking, using the toilet, sitting down or getting up, all of it hurt.
The doctor claimed it was muscle spasms. She gave me some muscle relaxants and it went away. I've since try to work out more. I haven't had an episode in a while but I can't sleep on my stomach like I used to as curving my back that way has been known to trigger it.
The claim here is that a significant proportion of these illnesses are psychogenic; even if your anecdote was convincing it would do nothing to challenge the original argument, as you could easily be part of the 47%[1].
Furthermore, you base your conclusion on the severity of pain you experienced, in your opinion, being beyond what's possible for a psychogenic illness. You don't offer evidence to support this opinion, and, as there are many types of psychological distress that drive people to ending their own lives, I find it unconvincing.
In any case, I hope you keep an open mind and find an effective way to manage and improve your health. The lifts recommended in other parts of this conversation might be more in line with your values.
So basically yes, you are saying they do not exist, because if tissue damage or fategue don't show up in an X-ray (they won't) it must be being created by the person themselves.
Next time you get a pulled muscle, just drink some tea and calm down, it didn't really happen, you're just too stressed.
