Yes, and in various ways.
Firstly there are relatively few named movement systems: this in itself may create issues within the field of professional practice as it means that confusion with regard to origin, identity, integrity of the system can arise.
Those that are defined appear
to focus primarily on whether something “works”. In other words is the chosen strategy effective i.e. has the intended outcome been achieved?
For example:
- has the strategy resulted in the action of a specific muscle or a series of muscles
- has the box (or any other inanimate object been moved from A to B?;
- has the strategy resulted in altering an individual's position, say, from sitting to standing?
The NMAHM® regards safety in movement as most important, and as such movement effectiveness is secondary to the concept of movement efficiency.
Movement efficiency is core to the NMAHM®, and is in part defined as movement which progresses towards achieving its objective with minimal muscle effort, and minimal potential
for tissue adaptation, potential or actual injury.
There are many named, and a greater number of non-named, exercise methods. From
review of information including
research to date these exercise systems again focus primarily on effectiveness. Most are based upon aiming to achieve defined effects, and originate mainly from the application of mechanical physics to the structures and workings of the body. As such they also run the risk of not fulfilling the notion of movement efficiency
with consequent potential impact upon health, safety and well being
.
There are very few named manual handling systems that currently exist: and if something is not named, it is generally not well-defined.
Without such definition it can be very difficult to professionally assess the validity or worth of a system. Several systems seem to vary widely in practice depending upon individual practitioners or strains of development.
Although allowance may need to be made for variation in standard of practitioners, and the consequent influence upon practice and outcome, the NMAHM ® suggests that any defined system should not only be named, but should also have:
• an origin and lineage
• a defined theory including a specific concept and philosophy
• defined practice congruent with the underlying theory
to enable testing of consistency amongst these elements within the given system.
Without such information, and initial intra-system consistency there is no valid basis from which to begin to compare one system with any other.
The NMAHM® is based upon a series of long-standing, tried and tested principles representative of the various individual systems requiring consideration within the analysis and understanding of human movement and its potential effects (anatomy, physiology, mechanical physics and human movement developmental factors).
Within the primary teachings of the Approach it is recognised that in the living body these individual systems do not exist in isolation from each other but are intimately and inseparably interwoven.
The NMAHM® recognises that changes in any of these systems will automatically influence the others.
MovES Ltd suggest that:
- to apply an individual element as the sole factor for movement analysis is, to say the least, inappropriate.
- movement requires to be analysed from a multiple and integrated perspective.
|
