Issue link: https://www.massageandbodyworkdigital.com/i/1496639
The vast majority of time, I think about the fundamentals of muscle structure and function and how to teach it as the basis for manual and movement therapy. And the longer I have taught, the more I have come to dislike some of our foundational kinesiology terminologies. And, strange as it may seem, my difficulties lie with the two most fundamental ways that we describe muscles—how we name their attachments and how we name their actions. Or, in other words, how we think about their anatomy and physiology, structure and function. This is especially problematic when we realize that what we ask of our students when they are learning the muscular system are precisely these two things! MUSCLE ATTACHMENTS . . . ORIGINS AND INSERTIONS? Let's begin with muscle attachments, which we usually name as origin and insertion. So, what exactly is wrong with naming attachments as origin and insertion? Well, first of all, I don't believe that muscles think of their own attachments as origin and insertion. Now, muscles don't have self-consciousness or the ability to think at all, but if they did, I am certain they would identify their attachments as simply this one over here and that other L i s te n to T h e A B M P Po d c a s t a t a b m p.co m /p o d c a s t s o r w h e reve r yo u a cce s s yo u r favo r i te p o d c a s t s 37 and Joint Action Terminology? KEY POINTS • A muscle is a simple pulling machine, and when it contracts, it pulls equally on both attachments. The attachment that moves is simply the one with less resistance to moving. • Origin/insertion terminology creates a rigidity in thinking that can obscure the simplicity of muscle function. By Dr. Joe Muscolino ORIGIN/ INSERTION What's Wrong with