chazot
New User
Thomas Pain has magisterially defined a lifetime of teaching logic, A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. (Thomas Paine).
1,The nuchal ligament is not under tension when the horse's head is held in an alert posture, and is not elastic enough to allow grazing without separating the front legs. Theses beliefs are the general consensus. The reality is that the nuchal ligament does no have the support role commonly believed but rather a dynamic function easing the work of the upper neck muscles.
2, The head and neck weight 10% of the horse's body weight. As the neck lowers, the upper neck muscles elongate resisting the load of the head and neck, which for a 1200 pound horse, is 120 pounds. To do so the upper neck muscles are working in eccentric contraction which is the most powerful type of muscle contractions. Traditional views that emphasize stretching of the upper neck muscles omit one fundamental question. If the upper neck muscles stretch pulling on the back muscles acting from the head toward the horse withers, who is carrying the horse's head?
3 The role of the nuchal ligament is precisely to store and restitute energy in order to ease the work of the upper neck muscles. This is the same principle that the work of the lower legs' long tendons.
4, The upper region of the nuchal ligament has so little tissue volume that the area referred to as F3 and F4 in Gellman and Bertram studies were regarded as too weak to have any significant capacity of energy storage.
5, The line of function of the nuchal ligament significantly changes the real effect of the nuchal ligament. Increased tension is mainly acting on the lower loop of the cervical vertebrae increasing the lowering of the lower cervical vertebrae and their attachment with the thoracic vertebrae.
6 The verticalization of the dorsal spinous processes of the cranial thoracic vertebrae does increase the lowering of the lower segment of the neck and the trunk between the shoulder blades.
The so-called stretching of the back muscles achieved by lowering or over-flexion of the neck is part of old beliefs that do not understand that the main function of the back muscles is precisely to resist increase in the range of motion of the horse's vertebral column. The equine thoracolumbar spine has a very limited range of motion and the main function of the back muscles is to protect the vertebral column structure form movements which amplitude would exceed the spine's range of motion. Any attempt to increase such amplitude of movement will be resisted by the back muscles. Efficiency does not reside in increasing the amplitude of the equine vertebral column movements but rather better in a better coordination of numerous and minute muscle contractions. This is how the horse's vertebral column effectively works. Up to you to deny progresses. Jean Luc Cornille.
[ QUOTE ]
So, his main argument step by step as far as I understand it:
1 first he rejects the general consensus on the work the nuchal ligament does (without referencing where this consensual judgement comes from) by appeal to 'reality' - this is quite evidently a pretty poor argument!
2 then he suggests that the lowering of the neck increases the workload of this muscle, accepting the this goes against 'traditional anatomy' (no reference to either the 'traditional' view or why he comes to reject it).
3 then he draws a parallel between 'the principle of storage and restitution of energy" between legs and this ligament, failing to explain what this principle is or why the parallel holds.
4 then he draws a weird conclusion from a study about the elastic energy stored in F4 and F3 to a claim about the weakness of these areas in terms of supporting a horse in hyperflexion - this seems to be the heart of the argument, but is almost nonsensical.
5 then there is appeal to the 'significant discovery' about the length of the ligament, but it's not clear why this point is relevant to his argument as
6 returns to re-iterate point 4 above
Then there appears to be a separate argument to do with the shape of the neck. There is a another unreferenced claim about the general consensus, and then some claim that seems to say that the function of the ligament now proves that lowering the neck increased the weight on the forelegs. Another effect further aggrevates 'the problem', although by this stage I am not clear what the problem is. The weight on the forelimbs? Then this has little to do with hyperflexion, any extension of the neck forwards is problematic, so most of riding is problematic.
Apologies to anyone who find this too penickety, a lifetime of teaching logic leads to certain habits...
[/ QUOTE ]
1,The nuchal ligament is not under tension when the horse's head is held in an alert posture, and is not elastic enough to allow grazing without separating the front legs. Theses beliefs are the general consensus. The reality is that the nuchal ligament does no have the support role commonly believed but rather a dynamic function easing the work of the upper neck muscles.
2, The head and neck weight 10% of the horse's body weight. As the neck lowers, the upper neck muscles elongate resisting the load of the head and neck, which for a 1200 pound horse, is 120 pounds. To do so the upper neck muscles are working in eccentric contraction which is the most powerful type of muscle contractions. Traditional views that emphasize stretching of the upper neck muscles omit one fundamental question. If the upper neck muscles stretch pulling on the back muscles acting from the head toward the horse withers, who is carrying the horse's head?
3 The role of the nuchal ligament is precisely to store and restitute energy in order to ease the work of the upper neck muscles. This is the same principle that the work of the lower legs' long tendons.
4, The upper region of the nuchal ligament has so little tissue volume that the area referred to as F3 and F4 in Gellman and Bertram studies were regarded as too weak to have any significant capacity of energy storage.
5, The line of function of the nuchal ligament significantly changes the real effect of the nuchal ligament. Increased tension is mainly acting on the lower loop of the cervical vertebrae increasing the lowering of the lower cervical vertebrae and their attachment with the thoracic vertebrae.
6 The verticalization of the dorsal spinous processes of the cranial thoracic vertebrae does increase the lowering of the lower segment of the neck and the trunk between the shoulder blades.
The so-called stretching of the back muscles achieved by lowering or over-flexion of the neck is part of old beliefs that do not understand that the main function of the back muscles is precisely to resist increase in the range of motion of the horse's vertebral column. The equine thoracolumbar spine has a very limited range of motion and the main function of the back muscles is to protect the vertebral column structure form movements which amplitude would exceed the spine's range of motion. Any attempt to increase such amplitude of movement will be resisted by the back muscles. Efficiency does not reside in increasing the amplitude of the equine vertebral column movements but rather better in a better coordination of numerous and minute muscle contractions. This is how the horse's vertebral column effectively works. Up to you to deny progresses. Jean Luc Cornille.
[ QUOTE ]
So, his main argument step by step as far as I understand it:
1 first he rejects the general consensus on the work the nuchal ligament does (without referencing where this consensual judgement comes from) by appeal to 'reality' - this is quite evidently a pretty poor argument!
2 then he suggests that the lowering of the neck increases the workload of this muscle, accepting the this goes against 'traditional anatomy' (no reference to either the 'traditional' view or why he comes to reject it).
3 then he draws a parallel between 'the principle of storage and restitution of energy" between legs and this ligament, failing to explain what this principle is or why the parallel holds.
4 then he draws a weird conclusion from a study about the elastic energy stored in F4 and F3 to a claim about the weakness of these areas in terms of supporting a horse in hyperflexion - this seems to be the heart of the argument, but is almost nonsensical.
5 then there is appeal to the 'significant discovery' about the length of the ligament, but it's not clear why this point is relevant to his argument as
6 returns to re-iterate point 4 above
Then there appears to be a separate argument to do with the shape of the neck. There is a another unreferenced claim about the general consensus, and then some claim that seems to say that the function of the ligament now proves that lowering the neck increased the weight on the forelegs. Another effect further aggrevates 'the problem', although by this stage I am not clear what the problem is. The weight on the forelimbs? Then this has little to do with hyperflexion, any extension of the neck forwards is problematic, so most of riding is problematic.
Apologies to anyone who find this too penickety, a lifetime of teaching logic leads to certain habits...
[/ QUOTE ]