Pilates for Teens; Video Evaluation for Instructors
I thoroughly enjoyed Zoey Trap’s article “Pilates: Tools for Teen Athletes” in IDEA Fitness Journal [Inner IDEA, November–December 2010]. I’ve always been an advocate of using the principles of Pilates not only literally, but figuratively, as metaphors for life. I applaud her for commencing with the teen market.
In the same issue, I also loved Biray Alsac’s feature, “Digitally Enhancing the Value of Evaluations,” which discussed using video technology in the traditional [instructor/trainer] evaluation process. As the author of the AFAA Instructor Evaluation form that is used as an industry-standard textbook appendix supplement, I know the value of evaluating staff (and then letting staff evaluate their managers). Adding the recorded, objective component that includes both audio and video will enhance evaluations forever.
Lawrence Biscontini, MS
Fajardo, Puerto Rico
I read the news item “Which Exercise Is Best for Abdominal Activation?” by Ryan Halvorson in IDEA Fitness Journal [Making News, September 2010]. I also had read the journal article [on which it was based]. I appreciate that you introduced the material. I feel like people act like zombies sometimes, just following along with the myth that core exercise is, well, what they believe it to be. There is science behind the madness, though.
I have discussed core stabilization theory with several industry leaders, and it reminds me of the barefoot-running controversy. The literature shows us electromyogram activation for various [core] exercises and compares stable to unstable surfaces. Regardless of whether the theory of core stabilization is as Manohar M. Panjabi, MD, suggests [Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques (1992; 5 , 383–89)]—or concerns the activation patterns of deep spinal muscles, which Australian physiotherapists have found will correct lower-back pain—I think we can come to a consensus with some of the research by Stuart McGill, PhD: that something is better than nothing.
In the November–December Ex Rx column, “Designing a Program for Swayback Posture,” we erroneously described the natural curve of the back as “convex.” The correct description should have been “concave.” The paragraph that appears under the subhead “Swayback Versus Lordotic Analysis” should read as follows:
“Upon quick comparison, swayback and lordotic postures appear similar, owing to the concave curve in the back. However, upon closer observation it is apparent that in lordotic posture the lumbar spine is concave, while in swayback posture the low lumbar area is actually flattened. In swayback posture the concave curve of the spine is much higher, in the lower thoracic spine.”
Also, on page 17 of the September Making News column we included an incorrect image depicting the QuickGym ROM machine. The correct image is printed here.
We regret the errors.
Send your letters and opinions to Ryan Halvorson, IDEA Fitness Journal Fitness Forum, 10455 Pacific Center Ct., San Diego, CA 92121-4339; fax them to him at (858) 535-8234; or e-mail them to [email protected] You may also leave a voice mail letter in the editorial voice mail box at (858) 535-8979, ext. 239. (For general membership questions or information, however, please e-mail member services at [email protected] .com.) We reserve the right to edit letters for length or clarity.