I know this is a bit dated but I just came across Phil's post
below on google...

Several weeks ago, I was reading a book by Pete Egoscue (on
the web at www.egoscue.com) in which he claims that many, many
(most?) people are in a permanent state of hip flexion (see
"Condition 1" at http://www.egoscue.com/htdocs/conditions2.asp
)with the pelvis rotated forward and with lordosis as a
result. He also says this condition causes the feet to be
everted rather than pointing straight ahead. (It was my
impression that Pete Egoscue stated that ANY eversion of the
feet is a symptom of disfunction...)

Pete Egoscue claims that one of the best exercises (he calls
them "e-cises") for this is the "supine groin stretch." This
involved lying flat on your back for long periods of time (up
to 45 minutes for each leg) with one straight out flat on the
floor and the other leg resting on top of a chair with the
knee at a 90 degree angle.

Anyone ever heard of anything like this before? Much of what
Egoscue says about people not getting enough excercise and
having weaknesses and disfunctions as a result seemed to make
sense to me but some of it left me skeptical. For example, if
just about everyone is in "hip flexion" all the time why is
Egoscue the only one (that I'm aware off) talking about this.

Does something like the "supine groin stretch" have any
merit? Comments?

=======
"Phil Caravaggio" <pcNOSPAM~johnberardi.com> wrote in
news:uvj79.28175$Bj.2161412~read2.cgocable.net: ... First, let
me address the question of whether it works or not. The answer
is a yes, it works. I've used it to successfully correct this
exact problem on myself. In addition, I've shown the
techniques to quite a few others in the same predicament, with
nothing but positive results to show for
it. But I must qualify that statement - those I know that
have used these techniques (myself included) were in
pretty good physical condition (by that I mean not
overfat), and none of them had severe issues which would
require medical attention. All of them were fit enough to
train. What I'm getting at here is that you must use your
good judgment to determine whether you are fit enough to
try to correct this in the gym, or whether you should
seek medical attention. In other words, use common sense.

You asked a lot of questions, and I'll do my best to answer
them. It may seem confusing at first, but the more you
consider it, the more logical it seems. Without delving too
deeply into anatomy, let me explain what I perceive to be the
issue with lordosis. One, excessive hip flexion (the forward
pelvic tilt you mention), two, excessive lumbar
extension/hyperextension (excessive curvature of the lower
spine). Not good. What you want is a balance between hip
flexion and hip extension (tilting the hip back), and between
lumbar extension and lumbar flexion (reducing the curvature of
the lower spine).

So you have essentially two groups of opposing muscles -- the
hip flexors oppose the hip extensors, and the lumbar extensors
oppose the lumbar flexors. In each group, there is likely a
muscle strength and/or length imbalance. That is, the hip
flexors are stronger and/or shorter than the hip
extensors(which results in the excessive forward pelvis tilt),
and the lumbar extensors are stronger and/or longer than the
lumbar flexors (hence the excessive lower spine curvature) .
I'll address each group in turn.

With respect to the hip, you would want to strengthen the hip
extensors.and lengthen or stretch the hip flexors. That is,
you want to strengthen the muscles that will help reverse the
excessive forward tilt of the pelvis (the hip extensors), and
stretch the muscles the are keeping the pelvis tilted forward
(the hip flexors). Strengthen the hip extensors, lengthen the
hip flexors. In other words, strengthen the glutes and
hamstrings (hip extensors), lengthen/stretch the psoas and
quads (hip flexors). The anatomy is a little more complicated
than that, but that will serve you fine for now. If you want
more, go to http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Hip.html and you
can read all about the various muscles involved.

With respect to the lumbar spine, you would want to strengthen
the lumbar flexors and stretch the lumbar extensors. That is,
you want to strengthen the muscles that will reduce the
excessive curvature of the lower spine (the lumbar flexors)
and lengthen/stretch the muscles that may be keeping the
lumbar spine excessively curved. A word of caution though: In
my own experience I have found stretching the lumbar extensors
to be unnecessary, and some find it painful. If that is the
case, don't do it. Use your discretion. I focus primarily on
strengthening the lumbar extensors. I also reduce the exercise
volume I devote to lumbar extension, hence my suggestion not
to prioritize Hyperextensions in the training program (more on
hypers later). Bottom line, strengthen the abs (the lumbar
flexors), lay a bit off the erector spinae training (the
lumbar extensors). Again, if you want more detail go to
http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Spine.html#anchor164498 and
you can find
iu.

In fact, while you are at exrx.net, check out the little
animated gif of the guy doing the Hyperextensions (http://www-
.exrx.net/WeightExercises/ErectorSpinae/WtBackExtension.html).
This is exactly how most people do Hypers -- lots of lumbar
extension, very little hip extension. Hip stays stationary,
lower spine does a whole lot of bending. The lumbar extensors
are primary movers, the hip extensors merely synergists. So in
essence, you're emphasizing the muscles that should be
de-emphasized (erector spinae), and de-emphasizing the muscles
that should be emphasized (glutes, hams). Not what I want. The
position of the pad (on the hips) restricts the movement of
the hip, and moves the axis of rotation to the lumbar spine.
However, adjust it so that the pad is resting against your
thighs and its a whole new exercise. The hip can rotate
freely, the hip extensors become primary movers, and the
erector spinae become stabilizers if done correctly. What is
'correctly'? Keep the lumbar spine neutral (not excessively
extended nor flexed), and go only as far down as you can
without changing the neutrality of the spine. Don't let it
flex forward at the bottom, and don't hyperextend it at the
top. I want the erector spinae to be stabilizers, not primary
movers. Of course, most people can only do one or two reps
like this at first. Why? Because their hip extensors are weak!
But I'd rather that than 15 reps using form that will likely
exacerbate the problem. The focus here should be on the glutes
and hamstrings, not the erector spinae.

You might say that this flies in the face of conventional
thought. Maybe your buddy told you that if your lower back
hurts, you should work on training your lower back. You
thought that sounded reasonable. Maybe you even tried it, you
hopped on the hyper bench and busted a gut. My guess is that
probably didn't help. If it did work, then by all means keep
doing it. Don't get me wrong, there is some benefit to doing
hypers, even the conventional way. They do strengthen the
erector spinae, and in many cases the erector spinae are weak
and need to be strengthened. However, the hip extensors
(glutes, hams) and lumbar flexors(abs) are probably even
weaker! You've got to prioritize those muscles over the
erector spinae in order to correct the imbalance, and in turn
your posture. So do the hypers if you must, but prioritize
the other muscles by volume (devote more time to them) and
order (place them first in the training session and in the
training week).

Ian King's distinction between quad-dominant vs. hip-dominant
exercises is simply used to help determine whether your
training is balanced. He never says that squats are bad, just
that most people do them much more often than deadlifts, and
an imbalance often ensues. He also teaches the squat using a
technique that emphasizes the glutes, hamstrings, and abs, and
de-emphasizes the hip flexors. He has written articles about
his techniques, books as well. I'll post a few links below.

To address another question that was asked: Why focus on
lower/transverse abs? Why not? They're weak and need training,
and training them will help to alleviate the postural problem.
Rectus and obliques are lumbar flexors, transverse and
obliques generate intra-abdominal pressure which supports the
lumbar spine. How:

Transverse: http://www.t-mag.com/articles/169ab.html Abs in
general: http://www.t-mag.com/html/123abs.html

Stretching:
http://www.exrx.net/Stretches/HipFlexors/Lunge.html
http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_89lazy.html

King also has his own site which has an index of the articles
he's written. You can read them to learn the exercises and
more about the rationale behind their selection:

http://www.kingsports.net/articles.htm

In the next day or two I'll post again on specific exercises
and strategies.

I'm sure some will not agree with my opinion, and some will
simply dismiss it out of hand. That's fine - c'est la vie.
Ultimately what people think is irrelevant, it's results that
count. I can't tell you what to do, I can only relate why I
know has worked in the past and let you decide for yourself.
Use your own judgment. Is it guaranteed to work in every case?
Of course not. Is it worth a shot? I think so.

Chris Jain wrote:
  >
  > I know this is a bit dated but I just came across Phil's
  > post below on google...
  >
  > Several weeks ago, I was reading a book by Pete Egoscue (on
  > the web at www.egoscue.com) in which he claims that many,
  > many (most?) people are in a permanent state of hip flexion
  > (see "Condition 1" at
  > http://www.egoscue.com/htdocs/conditions2.asp )with the
  > pelvis rotated forward and with lordosis as a result. He
  > also says this condition causes the feet to be everted
  > rather than pointing straight ahead. (It was my impression
  > that Pete Egoscue stated that ANY eversion of the feet is a
  > symptom of disfunction...)
  >
  > Pete Egoscue claims that one of the best exercises (he calls
  > them "e-cises") for this is the "supine groin stretch." This
  > involved lying flat on your back for long periods of time
  > (up to 45 minutes for each leg) with one straight out flat
  > on the floor and the other leg resting on top of a chair
  > with the knee at a 90 degree angle.
  >
  > Anyone ever heard of anything like this before? Much of what
  > Egoscue says about people not getting enough excercise and
  > having weaknesses and disfunctions as a result seemed to
  > make sense to me but some of it left me skeptical. For
  > example, if just about everyone is in "hip flexion" all the
  > time why is Egoscue the only one (that I'm aware off)
  > talking about this.
  >
  > Does something like the "supine groin stretch" have any
  > merit? Comments?

The position of the original author, as you've restated it, is
only part of the picture in my opinion, but is correct as far
as standing posture of the non-exercising public is concerned.
Tight hip flexors are largely responsible, as he says.

However, watch those same people sitting, which is what they
do most of the time, and you'll observe the *opposite*
condition, too much outward, not inward, curvature of the
lower spine, an overly stretched lower back, and tight
hamstrings.

What I conclude from looking at both these things together is
that sitting is the main culprit and that abs, hamstrings,
glutes, and lumbar spine are all weak, while hip flexors are
too tight (and probably weak as well). When standing, the
combination of tight hip flexors and weak abs allows the
pelvis to tilt down in the front, up in the back, creating the
lourdosis the original author mentions.

Certainly stretching the hip flexors is an *excellent* idea,
but strengthing the abs, strengthening the lower back and
glutes, and stretching the hamstrings also should be done.
Ideally all of these muscles should be kept both strong and
flexible, of course.

Is that stretch worthwhile? There are many ways to stretch
the hip flexors. The approach the author describes is one
I've heard called "waiting out the tension" and it works, but
there are other approaches and other stretches that can work
just as well.

-S-

--
Kettlebell info at: <http://www.myaffiliateprogram.com/u/drag-
ondr/t.asp?id=1022&p=kettlebells>

  > =======
  > "Phil Caravaggio" <pcNOSPAM~johnberardi.com> wrote in
  > news:uvj79.28175$Bj.2161412~read2.cgocable.net: ... First,
  > let me address the question of whether it works or not. The
  > answer is a yes, it works. I've used it to successfully
  > correct this exact problem on myself. In addition, I've
  > shown the techniques to quite a few others in the same
  > predicament, with nothing but positive results to show for
  > it. But I must qualify that statement - those I know that
  > have used these techniques (myself included) were in
  > pretty good physical condition (by that I mean not
  > overfat), and none of them had severe issues which
  > would require medical attention. All of them were fit
  > enough to train. What I'm getting at here is that you
  > must use your good judgment to determine whether you
  > are fit enough to try to correct this in the gym, or
  > whether you should seek medical attention. In other
  > words, use common sense.
  >
  > You asked a lot of questions, and I'll do my best to answer
  > them. It may seem confusing at first, but the more you
  > consider it, the more logical it seems. Without delving too
  > deeply into anatomy, let me explain what I perceive to be
  > the issue with lordosis. One, excessive hip flexion (the
  > forward pelvic tilt you mention), two, excessive lumbar
  > extension/hyperextension (excessive curvature of the lower
  > spine). Not good. What you want is a balance between hip
  > flexion and hip extension (tilting the hip back), and
  > between lumbar extension and lumbar flexion (reducing the
  > curvature of the lower spine).
  >
  > So you have essentially two groups of opposing muscles --
  > the hip flexors oppose the hip extensors, and the lumbar
  > extensors oppose the lumbar flexors. In each group, there is
  > likely a muscle strength and/or length imbalance. That is,
  > the hip flexors are stronger and/or shorter than the hip
  > extensors(which results in the excessive forward pelvis
  > tilt), and the lumbar extensors are stronger and/or longer
  > than the lumbar flexors (hence the excessive lower spine
  > curvature) . I'll address each group in turn.
  >
  > With respect to the hip, you would want to strengthen the
  > hip extensors.and lengthen or stretch the hip flexors. That
  > is, you want to strengthen the muscles that will help
  > reverse the excessive forward tilt of the pelvis (the hip
  > extensors), and stretch the muscles the are keeping the
  > pelvis tilted forward (the hip flexors). Strengthen the hip
  > extensors, lengthen the hip flexors. In other words,
  > strengthen the glutes and hamstrings (hip extensors),
  > lengthen/stretch the psoas and quads (hip flexors). The
  > anatomy is a little more complicated than that, but that
  > will serve you fine for now. If you want more, go to
  > http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Hip.html and you can read
  > all about the various muscles involved.
  >
  > With respect to the lumbar spine, you would want to
  > strengthen the lumbar flexors and stretch the lumbar
  > extensors. That is, you want to strengthen the muscles that
  > will reduce the excessive curvature of the lower spine (the
  > lumbar flexors) and lengthen/stretch the muscles that may be
  > keeping the lumbar spine excessively curved. A word of
  > caution though: In my own experience I have found stretching
  > the lumbar extensors to be unnecessary, and some find it
  > painful. If that is the case, don't do it. Use your
  > discretion. I focus primarily on strengthening the lumbar
  > extensors. I also reduce the exercise volume I devote to
  > lumbar extension, hence my suggestion not to prioritize
  > Hyperextensions in the training program (more on hypers
  > later). Bottom line, strengthen the abs (the lumbar
  > flexors), lay a bit off the erector spinae training (the
  > lumbar extensors). Again, if you want more detail go to
  > http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Spine.html#anchor164498
  > and you can find
  > it.
  >
  > In fact, while you are at exrx.net, check out the little
  > animated gif of the guy doing the Hyperextensions (http://w-
  > ww.exrx.net/WeightExercises/ErectorSpinae/WtBackExtension.h-
  > tml). This is exactly how most people do Hypers -- lots of
  > lumbar extension, very little hip extension. Hip stays
  > stationary, lower spine does a whole lot of bending. The
  > lumbar extensors are primary movers, the hip extensors
  > merely synergists. So in essence, you're emphasizing the
  > muscles that should be de-emphasized (erector spinae), and
  > de-emphasizing the muscles that should be emphasized
  > (glutes, hams). Not what I want. The position of the pad (on
  > the hips) restricts the movement of the hip, and moves the
  > axis of rotation to the lumbar spine. However, adjust it so
  > that the pad is resting against your thighs and its a whole
  > new exercise. The hip can rotate freely, the hip extensors
  > become primary movers, and the erector spinae become
  > stabilizers if done correctly. What is 'correctly'? Keep the
  > lumbar spine neutral (not excessively extended nor flexed),
  > and go only as far down as you can without changing the
  > neutrality of the spine. Don't let it flex forward at the
  > bottom, and don't hyperextend it at the top. I want the
  > erector spinae to be stabilizers, not primary movers. Of
  > course, most people can only do one or two reps like this at
  > first. Why? Because their hip extensors are weak! But I'd
  > rather that than 15 reps using form that will likely
  > exacerbate the problem. The focus here should be on the
  > glutes and hamstrings, not the erector spinae.
  >
  > You might say that this flies in the face of conventional
  > thought. Maybe your buddy told you that if your lower back
  > hurts, you should work on training your lower back. You
  > thought that sounded reasonable. Maybe you even tried it,
  > you hopped on the hyper bench and busted a gut. My guess is
  > that probably didn't help. If it did work, then by all means
  > keep doing it. Don't get me wrong, there is some benefit to
  > doing hypers, even the conventional way. They do strengthen
  > the erector spinae, and in many cases the erector spinae are
  > weak and need to be strengthened. However, the hip extensors
  > (glutes, hams) and lumbar flexors(abs) are probably even
  > weaker! You've got to prioritize those muscles over the
  > erector spinae in order to correct the imbalance, and in
  > turn your posture. So do the hypers if you must, but
  > prioritize the other muscles by volume (devote more time to
  > them) and order (place them first in the training session
  > and in the training week).
  >
  > Ian King's distinction between quad-dominant vs.
  > hip-dominant exercises is simply used to help determine
  > whether your training is balanced. He never says that squats
  > are bad, just that most people do them much more often than
  > deadlifts, and an imbalance often ensues. He also teaches
  > the squat using a technique that emphasizes the glutes,
  > hamstrings, and abs, and de-emphasizes the hip flexors. He
  > has written articles about his techniques, books as well.
  > I'll post a few links below.
  >
  > To address another question that was asked: Why focus on
  > lower/transverse abs? Why not? They're weak and need
  > training, and training them will help to alleviate the
  > postural problem. Rectus and obliques are lumbar flexors,
  > transverse and obliques generate intra-abdominal pressure
  > which supports the lumbar spine. How:
  >
  > Transverse: http://www.t-mag.com/articles/169ab.html Abs in
  > general: http://www.t-mag.com/html/123abs.html
  >
  > Stretching:
  > http://www.exrx.net/Stretches/HipFlexors/Lunge.html
  > http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_89lazy.html
  >
  > King also has his own site which has an index of the
  > articles he's written. You can read them to learn the
  > exercises and more about the rationale behind their
  > selection:
  >
  > http://www.kingsports.net/articles.htm
  >
  > In the next day or two I'll post again on specific exercises
  > and strategies.
  >
  > I'm sure some will not agree with my opinion, and some will
  > simply dismiss it out of hand. That's fine - c'est la vie.
  > Ultimately what people think is irrelevant, it's results
  > that count. I can't tell you what to do, I can only relate
  > why I know has worked in the past and let you decide for
  > yourself. Use your own judgment. Is it guaranteed to work in
  > every case? Of course not. Is it worth a shot? I think so.

[Lordosis stuff]....

I find it very uncomfortable to lie flat on my back on the
floor. The weight of my legs pulls my stomach up into an arch.

Would it be a good idea to deliberately lie flat and press my
lower back into the floor? [guess=yes]

Also How about sleeping on my back? I "naturally" avoid this,
but could this help stretch my hip flexors? [guess=hmmm]

When I bench I find it uncomfortable to put my feet flat
on the floor. I usually set an Areobic Step in front of
the bench...

Should I just stop doing all these little things that would
otherwise make me slightly uncomfortable but perhaps over the
long term help stretch out my hip flexors ? [guess=probably]

Cheers, Lordy

lordy wrote:
  >
  > [Lordosis stuff]....
  >
  > I find it very uncomfortable to lie flat on my back on
  > the floor. The weight of my legs pulls my stomach up into
  > an arch.
  >
  > Would it be a good idea to deliberately lie flat and press
  > my lower back into the floor? [guess=yes]

Who said it's supposed to be comfortable? It's a test of the
strength of your abdominal muscles and the flexibility of your
hip flexors. If your hips flexors were looser and/or your abs
stronger, it might not be quite as uncomfortable, but I think
it would still be work for most of us.

Don't just try this position and force yourself into it. Try
it by keeping one leg on the floor and one leg raised
straight up. If you can't manage it that way, work on
stretching your lower back out first. If you can, then lower
only until you feel your back start to come off the floor.
Reverse directions at that point, switch legs, do the same
thing on the other side. Keep the raise leg pretty straight
but you needn't lock the knee. Once you can get the one leg
all the way down and keep your back on the floor, you can try
it lowering both legs at once.

  > Also How about sleeping on my back? I "naturally" avoid
  > this, but could this help stretch my hip flexors?
  > [guess=hmmm]

Not likely. Likely that it will just scrunch/bunch up your
lower back unless you've got a mattress soft enough to get
into the small of your back and support it. I sleep on my back
a lot but I have a big, thick pillow, actually an old cushion
from the back of a sofa, that I keep under my knees so that I
don't jam my spine.

  > When I bench I find it uncomfortable to put my feet flat on
  > the floor. I usually set an Areobic Step in front of the
  > bench...

I don't bench so I won't advise here.

  > Should I just stop doing all these little things that would
  > otherwise make me slightly uncomfortable but perhaps over
  > the long term help stretch out my hip flexors ?
  > [guess=probably]

I agree, stretching your hip flexors is probably a good idea.

-S-

  > Cheers, Lordy

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 22:58:44 +0000, "lordy"
<spambox~gmx.net> said:

     >>[Lordosis stuff]....
     >>
     >>I find it very uncomfortable to lie flat on my back on
     >>the floor. The weight of my legs pulls my stomach up into
     >>an arch.

I used to be this way.

     >>
     >>Would it be a good idea to deliberately lie flat and press
     >>my lower back into the floor? [guess=yes]
     >>
I also used to wonder this and would do that exact thing.

All of this is now a non-factor since I started deadlifting
and squatting regularly again.

John Hanson wrote:
  >
  > On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 22:58:44 +0000, "lordy"
  > <spambox~gmx.net> said:
  >
     > >>[Lordosis stuff]....
     > >>
     > >>I find it very uncomfortable to lie flat on my back on
     > >>the floor. The weight of my legs pulls my stomach up into
     > >>an arch.
  >
  > I used to be this way.
  >
     > >>
     > >>Would it be a good idea to deliberately lie flat and press
     > >>my lower back into the floor? [guess=yes]
     > >>
  > I also used to wonder this and would do that exact thing.
  >
  > All of this is now a non-factor since I started deadlifting
  > and squatting regularly again.

Yay! Same here, and add regular crunches...

Katy

cjain~ix.netcom.com (Chris Jain) wrote in message
news:<771ea75.0212041634.4b61bf7~posting.google.com>...
  > I know this is a bit dated but I just came across Phil's
  > post below on google...
  >
  > Several weeks ago, I was reading a book by Pete Egoscue (on
  > the web at www.egoscue.com) in which he claims that many,
  > many (most?) people are in a permanent state of hip flexion
  > (see "Condition 1" at
  > http://www.egoscue.com/htdocs/conditions2.asp )with the
  > pelvis rotated forward and with lordosis as a result. He
  > also says this condition causes the feet to be everted
  > rather than pointing straight ahead. (It was my impression
  > that Pete Egoscue stated that ANY eversion of the feet is a
  > symptom of disfunction...)
  >
  > Pete Egoscue claims that one of the best exercises (he calls
  > them "e-cises") for this is the "supine groin stretch." This
  > involved lying flat on your back for long periods of time
  > (up to 45 minutes for each leg) with one straight out flat
  > on the floor and the other leg resting on top of a chair
  > with the knee at a 90 degree angle.
  >
  > Anyone ever heard of anything like this before? Much of what
  > Egoscue says about people not getting enough excercise and
  > having weaknesses and disfunctions as a result seemed to
  > make sense to me but some of it left me skeptical. For
  > example, if just about everyone is in "hip flexion" all the
  > time why is Egoscue the only one (that I'm aware off)
  > talking about this.
  >
  > Does something like the "supine groin stretch" have any
  > merit? Comments?
  >

Everybody isn't in "hip flexion" all the time. Everybody does
have anatomical deviations, but they are certainly not this
cut-and-dried.

Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have spinal
lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither. Sometimes people
just have big butts. Really.

We did a posture analysis on a bunch of dancers in a lab
session at school, and we asked them what they thought of
their bodies. A little under half of them said that sombody
had told them that they had lordosis/pelvic tilt, and had
habitually tucked their tailbones under to compensate for it.
The lion's share of these hip-tuckin' dancers just happened to
have big butts, not sway backs like they'd been told. Tucking
their pelvises to hide/compensate for this "alignment problem"
put them into biomechanically inefficient postures for dance.

In terms of numbers, we looked at 13 dancers. 6 thought they
had the deviations you described. 4 were actively compensating
for the imaginary deviation. One actually had a sway back.

In other words, we looked at 4 healthy dancers who developed
weaknesses and dysfunctions because some idiot told them they
had lordosis/hip flexion/pelvic tilt.

That being said, it's very relaxing to lie on your back with
your butt against the wall and your feet at a 90% angle. It
certainly wouldn't hurt, other than taking up a lot of time
that could be better spent doing other things.

On 6 Dec 2002 10:53:57 -0800, skunkhaus~yahoo.com
(skunkhaus) wrote:

  >Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have spinal
  >lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither. Sometimes people
  >just have big butts. Really.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

-Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People
like you are why they only open the top half of caskets."
-Tommy Bowen

On 6 Dec 2002 10:53:57 -0800, skunkhaus~yahoo.com
(skunkhaus) wrote:

<snip some interesting stuff>
  >
  >That being said, it's very relaxing to lie on your back with
  >your butt against the wall and your feet at a 90% angle. It
  >certainly wouldn't hurt, other than taking up a lot of time
  >that could be better spent doing other things.

Great TV watching position. Especially if the TV is mounted on
the ceiling.

skunkhaus wrote:
  >
  > cjain~ix.netcom.com (Chris Jain) wrote in message
  > news:<771ea75.0212041634.4b61bf7~posting.google.com>...
     > > I know this is a bit dated but I just came across Phil's
     > > post below on google...
     > >
     > > Several weeks ago, I was reading a book by Pete Egoscue
     > > (on the web at www.egoscue.com) in which he claims that
     > > many, many (most?) people are in a permanent state of hip
     > > flexion (see "Condition 1" at
     > > http://www.egoscue.com/htdocs/conditions2.asp )with the
     > > pelvis rotated forward and with lordosis as a result. He
     > > also says this condition causes the feet to be everted
     > > rather than pointing straight ahead. (It was my impression
     > > that Pete Egoscue stated that ANY eversion of the feet is
     > > a symptom of disfunction...)
     > >
     > > Pete Egoscue claims that one of the best exercises (he
     > > calls them "e-cises") for this is the "supine groin
     > > stretch." This involved lying flat on your back for long
     > > periods of time (up to 45 minutes for each leg) with one
     > > straight out flat on the floor and the other leg resting
     > > on top of a chair with the knee at a 90 degree angle.
     > >
     > > Anyone ever heard of anything like this before? Much of
     > > what Egoscue says about people not getting enough
     > > excercise and having weaknesses and disfunctions as a
     > > result seemed to make sense to me but some of it left me
     > > skeptical. For example, if just about everyone is in "hip
     > > flexion" all the time why is Egoscue the only one (that
     > > I'm aware off) talking about this.

Because Egoscue, like most people who think that ALL
people suffer from XXX ALL The time is a moron with
something to sell you.

  > Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have
  > spinal lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither. Sometimes
  > people just have big butts. Really.

Yup, why the hand behind the back test can be misleading.
Big ass glues (huh huh) biases the test and gives an
inaccurate reading.

  > In terms of numbers, we looked at 13 dancers. 6 thought they
  > had the deviations you described. 4 were actively
  > compensating for the imaginary deviation. One actually had a
  > sway back.

And 13 is an unlucky number so you should have tested either
one less or one more.

Three, that's the magic number. Yes it is. It's the
magic number.

  > That being said, it's very relaxing to lie on your back with
  > your butt against the wall and your feet at a 90% angle. It
  > certainly wouldn't hurt, other than taking up a lot of time
  > that could be better spent doing other things.

It's more relaxing to lie flat on your back.

Lyle with someone on top of you

skunkhaus~yahoo.com (skunkhaus) wrote in message
news:<32603d44.0212061053.451552f6~posting.google.com>...

...

  > Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have
  > spinal lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither. Sometimes
  > people just have big butts. Really.

Very interesting. Egoscue claims that you can determine this
kind of stuff by just looking at yourself in the mirror. In
fact he has a service on his web page where you send in
pictures of yourself standing and his company prescribes a
"menu" of exercises/stretches (he calls them "e-cises").

...

  > In terms of numbers, we looked at 13 dancers. 6 thought they
  > had the deviations you described. 4 were actively
  > compensating for the imaginary deviation. One actually had a
  > sway back.

Also interesting. Do you think you would have found a
signficantly greater amount of lordosis/hip flexion/pelvic
tilt in a more sedentary group?

...

Steve Freides <steve~fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
news:<3DEEABED.C3E4BB01~fridayscomputer.com>...

...
  > Is that stretch worthwhile? There are many ways to stretch
  > the hip flexors. The approach the author describes is one
  > I've heard called "waiting out the tension" and it works,
  > but there are other approaches and other stretches that can
  > work just as well.
...

I found your post to be quite informative.

A quick google search pulled up at least 4-5 different
stretches for the hop flexors, but the suggested time for
all of these tend to by only 30 seconds or so and therefore
take a lot less time than Egoscue's suggested time length
for his stretch.

Top Sirloin wrote:
  >
  > On 6 Dec 2002 10:53:57 -0800, skunkhaus~yahoo.com
  > (skunkhaus) wrote:
  >
     > >Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have
     > >spinal lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither.
     > >Sometimes people just have big butts. Really.
  >
  > Hey, I resemble that remark.
  >
  > -Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs.
  > People like you are why they only open the top half of
  > caskets." -Tommy Bowen

Yet another reason we won't be getting in your pants.
ps

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:03:15 -0800, gps
<gstyles~ix.netcom.com> wrote:

  >Top Sirloin wrote:
     >>
     >> On 6 Dec 2002 10:53:57 -0800, skunkhaus~yahoo.com
     >> (skunkhaus) wrote:
     >>
     >> >Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have
     >> >spinal lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither.
     >> >Sometimes people just have big butts. Really.
     >>
     >> Hey, I resemble that remark.
     >>
     >> -Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs.
     >> People like you are why they only open the top half of
     >> caskets." -Tommy Bowen
  >
  >Yet another reason we won't be getting in your pants.
  >ps

No room.

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:18:34 GMT, Lucas Buck
<lefty~dodgerssuck.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

  >On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:03:15 -0800, gps
  ><gstyles~ix.netcom.com> wrote:
  >
     >>Top Sirloin wrote:
       >>>
       >>> On 6 Dec 2002 10:53:57 -0800, skunkhaus~yahoo.com
       >>> (skunkhaus) wrote:
       >>>
       >>> >Moreover, closer analysis of people who appear to have
       >>> >spinal lordosis/pelvic tilt often reveals neither.
       >>> >Sometimes people just have big butts. Really.
       >>>
       >>> Hey, I resemble that remark.
       >>>
       >>> -Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs.
       >>> People like you are why they only open the top half of
       >>> caskets." -Tommy Bowen
     >>
     >>Yet another reason we won't be getting in your pants.
     >>ps
  >
  >No room.

Huge legs.

And butt.

-Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat
,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo