
Originally Posted by
Lukman Ahmed
Jeff,
I regret putting that out there without giving it the treatment you asked for. A couple, perhaps somewhat introductory points:
1.) EMG activity definitely has shortcomings. Kelvin made a similar point in regards to using measurements of muscular activity in regards to horses and PGA Tour players in one of his articles. In brief, all measurements we get are "indirect"--there's always the "causation conundrum", which although frustrating to accept, is what it is. Karl Popper is the archetype of this view. However, if you were to speak to the most "thoughtful" biomechanists, they would say something alongs those lines. In the end, you "move past that" by getting at what both you, Manzella, and Como all advocate--"results are what count."
2.) I disagree, completely with the notion that if you just learn the kinetics everything will fall in place. What does it mean to "learn the kinetics"? What does it mean to have "the movement you want"? In my opinion, this is Brian's continued confusion over cause-and-effect because, it appears to me, he "learns the kinetics" by trying, along with scientists apparently, to "reverse engineer" what the movements and kinematics were.
3.) In regards to measuring forces and torques--when these forces/torques are measured "directly" they will give a much "truer" sense of when those forces and torques were generated than when studied on video alone.
I probably over-stated things earlier in regards to Brian's assertions. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that he's getting a little more nuanced and detailed with his explanations.
I'll re-state what Lloyd said some time back when yours and Lucas's trip to Denton was cancelled. It would have created more avenues for learning.
I understand why you guys's didn't want to go.
Again, results are what count. If you guys are getting the results you want then that's fine. Particularly, and justifiably, when others have been hostile to your approach.
I hope that helps. Let me know if anything else is unclear.