5/27/2020 Tom Myers Anatomy Trains Pdf Editor
Myofascial Meridians A revolution in Soft-Tissue Patterningmaps the ‘anatomy of connection’ – the whole-body fascial and myofascial linkages. Anatomy Trains links the individual muscles into functional complexes, each with a specific anatomy and ‘meaning’. Anatomy Trains leads to new holistic strategies for health professionals, movement teachers, and athletes to resolve complex postural and movement patterns.Anatomy Trains Myofascial Meridians gives you a new understanding of whole-body patterning in posture and function – the interplay of movement and stability.
Anatomy Trains book due out in.XXXXX THE AUTHOR Tom Myers studied with Ida Rolf, Moshe Feldenkrais, and Buckminster Fuller, and has practiced integrative bodywork in variety of clinical settings. He is author of the world-renowned Anatomy Trains concept and lectures all over the world to a vari-ety of manual and movement-based professions. Our newest Anatomy Trains ebook is the 3rd edition Myofascial Manual. This ebook maps myofascial connections, new fascial research, and is fully illustrated. Of whole body fascial and myofascial linkages developed by Thomas Myers.
Understanding the ‘Superficial Back Line’ as a whole gives insights into hamstring problems that you cannot get from considering the hamstrings alone. The ‘Spiral Line’ shows how to resolve rotational compensations in a way that no analysis of any single muscle can give.
.This redirect is within the scope of, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the.This redirect does not require a rating on the project's.This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's.KMI and Myofascial Release I am a new Wikipedia editor, although I've been an editor in other fields since the mid-1980s.
My interest here is to look at and contribute to pages related to topics that I have a good understanding of. I reverted an edit by 2over0 that directed the Kinesis Myofascial Integration (KMI) page to the Myofascial Release (MR) page.
At that time I suggested that we speak about this on the Talk page but 2over0 did not respond other than to suggest that I am a sock puppet. Recently, 2over0 made the same redirect. I have reverted the page, again, as this really needs to be discussed. I have attempted to explain the reversion I made, and I'll do it again here, inviting 2over0 to join the talk. The redirect of KMI to MR doesn't make sense in light of the historical derivation of both KMI and MR from Ida Rolf's work. Both have antecedents there, but so do many other forms of bodywork like Hellerwork, Soma, Structural Medicine, etc. That are not MR.
Moreover, MR borrows only technique for fascia from Ida Rolf's work, and takes it into the massage realm, whereas KMI is a further development of IPR's work of structural integration, bringing in Rolfer Tom Myers' work on 'anatomy trains.' Were one to redirect the KMI page, a redirect to the Rolfing page would be the logical place, as KMI is clearly in the Rolfing/Structural Integration 'family' of bodywork. In contrast, MR has appropriated from various sources, not limited to Ida Rolf's work, and has developed those in ways that are akin to massage, not to structural integration, in both theory and practice. 2over0, would you be willing to join this conversation?
I'd like to hear what you have to say.Wordsmith99 — Preceding comment added 23:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC), I'm tagging those who have edited recently to encourage people to state their opinions. The edit summaries have not really made it clear what issues are being perceived, so it would be good to have some communication. I'm a bit slow to the discussion myself because I wanted to take time to look up KMI in the various alt-med-compendium books that I use for general information about modalities (clearly, not so not for medical benefits). It seems like the problem with this article is a lack of notability, and I wanted to see if we were missing sources that exist.
KMI isn't mentioned in the dozen or so books I've been using. I expect there is probably some mention of them in periodicals but if books aren't giving it note then it's a good case for delete/redirect.
The point made above that the redirect should be to rather than is a good one. I actually would say that the redirect should be to the broader field of but that was merged with Rolfing (note that Rolfing is a brand of one particular school).
Rolfing is one of the pages I've been working on; I recently added a section about SI in general to help make up for the awkward lack of a more general SI page. Perhaps the best redirect would be to? Looking forward to hearing others' opinions. 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |