|
Brett's def.
"Mobility as I define it is the ability to access your flexibility by moving through a range of motion with control. Incorporates strength and motor control into the equation."
Randy's def.
"...use "mobility" to describe joint ROM (but not here as a quality of gross body movement e.g. Bear Bryant's requirement that a linemen be "agile, mobile and hostile") I conceive of this as a purely mechanical (skeletal)term."
I wish we had a better standardization of terms in our industry.....
I like Brett's definition...I would only add the qualifier of "joint" from Randy's.
Mobility is the moving of joint(s) through a range of motion with control.
It is implied in Brett's definition but I think it merits inclusion.
To put some scale to mobility, I like the Z's POV that focuses on active control of a joint minimizing compensation from other joints or performing mobility work in such a way that it automatically does so. It wasn't until I got some coaching in Z that I realized how much I was using compensatory movement. In effect, I was unable to perform fine joint mobility...I was performing gross joint[ (s) - for emphasis] mobility. The pieces cannot work correctly together if they cannot work well separately (or as separately as possible).
Kurz refers to all types of flexibility. The two biggest which Randy is referring to active and passive flexibility.
"I use "flexibility" to describe a muscle's capacity to either mobilize a joint volitionally (active
flexibility) or to allow mobilization via assistance from gravity or a partner (passive flexibility).
The greater the disparity between active and passive flexibility, the greater the risk of an injury
to muslces and joints and other connective tissues. I really like Pavel's assertion that flexibility
is largely neurological and a function of increasing strength in increasing ROM: neuromuscular
conditioning and not plastic deformation leads to a better and more functional flexibility.
The two distinctions clearly influence one another. If a joint doesn't have a full ROM, it will be
difficult to stretch effectively. Lack of flexibility will hinder working a joint through its full ROM.
But there does seem to be something qualitatively different between say (Super Joints) mobility
drills (for joint health) and threshhold shutdown training to improve flexibility."
Randy,
In addition to what you are referencing, I have read from Kurz, Pavel and/or Supertraining that a flexibility reserve (passive flex above active) of 10% is a good practice. I used to subscribe to this but since practicing Z inspired non-compensatory JM, I no longer practice any type of pure flexibility training. Since then, my injuries, aches and pains are nonexistent or quickly and easily resolved. I echo your sentiment about the SJ style of training vs. the disinhibition style of training of RIS. I wonder about the efficacy of disinhibition training.
Brett,
I am still cloudy on your post:
"The gap between your flexibility and mobility is your potential for injury -so to speak -
if you have greater mobility than flexibility then your are gaining your motion through some
sort of substitution.
If you have greater flexibility than mobility you cannot access your mobility due to poor
movement patterns etc...and you are open to injury.
The two are opposite sides of the same coin and you need both - your mobility can help with
your flexibility and vise versa...but one to the exclusion of the other is not optimal."
Question
"...if you have greater 'mobility (controlled ROM)' than flexibility, then you are gaining your motion through some sort of substitution (compensatory motion)."
Sorry, still am not getting this.
I don't think it is possible to have a greater level of mobility (my definition) than flexibility in the same joint / joint space.
In mobility, are you including hypermobility or joint laxity?
What kind of flexibility are you referring to?
active
passive
dynamic
dynamic active
dynamic passive
static active
static passive
Thanks,
Frankie
|
