INVERSION TABLES COMPARISONS / EVALUATIONS?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:44:15 GMT, David Cohen wrote:

"David" wrote

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.

Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree with
you.

Not everyone, David. They are contraindicated for me. Can't even do
traction on my neck. I know of a few others in the same 'boat.'

On 14 Dec 2004 11:58:07 GMT, RC SAILS wrote:
All

Thanks for your remarks. This is obviously a very active, lively and
supportive group and I very much appreciate your immediate and extensive
responses! I think I came to the right place. ;-)

For background, I suffered a ruptured L5-S1 disc a year ago October (in the
normal course of work as a sailmaker and rigger of sailboats), subsequently
undergoing a microendoscopic discectomy to relieve pressure on the primary
right leg nerve. At this point the disc is completely degenerated, the
adjacent vertebral surfaces are now bearing upon one another and the associated
nerves cause pain whenever I move incorrectly or sit or stand for periods of
time without moving. I will have an artificial disc replacement procedure done
as soon as the FDA approves the one I have chosen (ProDisc), but in the
meantime (possibly as long as 6-8 months) I'm dealing with pain and would
rather invest in other avenues of relief besides drugs so I can continue to
work and sleep more normally.

There are several types of disc replacement performed now in the US.
I'm investigating one myself, thanks to info provided by an EMT and a
few others at my gym. The procedure is done here in Texas.

I must currently do at least an hour of exercise a day (and stay fairly mobile
all day) just to stay relatively pain free, but the pain is increasing and if I
skip a day or don't do the full hour I pay the next day. I do
stretching/flexibility and back-strengthening exercises, 20 minutes on the
stationary bike and 30 minutes powerwalk, just to feel almost human. Multiple
intra-spinal steroid shots have given little or no relief, but I am learning
better posture and lifting technique! :-)

Approximately 75% of the personal comments I have read in various forums about
the efficacy of inversion therapy are positive, with the negative coming from
overweight users or those who may have less than well-designed equipment or
tried door-hanging equipment rather than tables.

There are also cases where inversion is contraindicated, one being
myself. One issue is the hyperlaxity of most of my joints, but the
other is specifically associated with my collapsed disc at L4-L5.

Traction was also tried twice on my herniated cervical disc (C6) with
very painful results. The spinal rehab specialist commented that
inversion and traction are not always beneficial, despite what many
believe otherwise. In my case, with both neck and lumbar spine, both
are contraindicated. My sister has also had negative reactions to
inversion but had positive results with traction of her legs/knees.

Consequently, ;while many people find relief with inversion, it may be
contraindicated in specific or individual cases. If you haven't
already, I highly suggest you consult with your PT and/or orthopedic
surgeon before attempting and investing in a contraption.

Good luck.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:24:24 GMT, David wrote:

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:03:02 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:59:35 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John M. Williams" wrote in
message
.. .
"David" wrote:

Your comments about back machines are valid. My company actually
designed
the Bioflex unit and we began manufacturing it in Australia 12
years
ago.

Hooboy! There's the hook. So, in reality, you're a spammer,
correct?

No in reality this would never have come up were it not for someone's
particular inquiry and wishing to have one - I never mentioned it last
time
we had this 'debate' - I had plenty of opportunities to promote this
if I
had wanted to - the website I gave is not even my own. - so that
charge
is
totally wrong and unfair - every post that Will makes promotes his
products.


First you blast Brink for criticizing physicians, only to later
reveal
your prejudice: you son is a physician.

Now you blast inversion tables, without any scientific evidence to
back up your claims that they are "crap and are not effective," as
well as your claims that they are "dangerous and counter productive"
at full inversion. Only at the end of this thread do you reveal
that
YOUR COMPANY produces the alternative 90/90 unit that you favor.

I feel really bad - I will have to go out and shoot myself. I gave you
the
reasons for my statements - backed them up with logic. the logic is
irrefutable as I noticed that you have not attempted to argue the
points.
Not much more I can do. If you're not happy with that then **** the
hell
off


You see what I mean David?

I think he just likes to do battle - whatever issue, right or wrong -


Problem is that he is a pompous old ******* that thinks he is always
right - which he's not!!

It is his training as a lawyer - you need to be combative. In this case it
is amusing that he defends the old ideas. It is like the old codger who
swears by his manual treadmill that he has had for 40 years - won;t hear of
these fancy new ideas about motorized treadmills.

A good lawyer knows when to leave it at the office.

"elzinator" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:24:24 GMT, David wrote:

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:03:02 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:59:35 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John M. Williams" wrote in
message
.. .
"David" wrote:

Your comments about back machines are valid. My company actually
designed
the Bioflex unit and we began manufacturing it in Australia 12
years
ago.

Hooboy! There's the hook. So, in reality, you're a spammer,
correct?

No in reality this would never have come up were it not for
someone's
particular inquiry and wishing to have one - I never mentioned it
last
time
we had this 'debate' - I had plenty of opportunities to promote
this
if I
had wanted to - the website I gave is not even my own. - so that
charge
is
totally wrong and unfair - every post that Will makes promotes his
products.


First you blast Brink for criticizing physicians, only to later
reveal
your prejudice: you son is a physician.

Now you blast inversion tables, without any scientific evidence
to
back up your claims that they are "crap and are not effective,"
as
well as your claims that they are "dangerous and counter
productive"
at full inversion. Only at the end of this thread do you reveal
that
YOUR COMPANY produces the alternative 90/90 unit that you favor.

I feel really bad - I will have to go out and shoot myself. I gave
you
the
reasons for my statements - backed them up with logic. the logic is
irrefutable as I noticed that you have not attempted to argue the
points.
Not much more I can do. If you're not happy with that then **** the
hell
off


You see what I mean David?

I think he just likes to do battle - whatever issue, right or wrong -


Problem is that he is a pompous old ******* that thinks he is always
right - which he's not!!

It is his training as a lawyer - you need to be combative. In this case
it
is amusing that he defends the old ideas. It is like the old codger who
swears by his manual treadmill that he has had for 40 years - won;t hear
of
these fancy new ideas about motorized treadmills.

A good lawyer knows when to leave it at the office.

Yes! Elzi what sort of therapy can you do on your compressed discs - just PT
to keep them 'mobile' - did they both result from the same injury or
accident?

"elzinator" wrote
David Cohen wrote:
"David" wrote

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.

Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree
with
you.

Not everyone, David. They are contraindicated for me. Can't even do
traction on my neck. I know of a few others in the same 'boat.'

Revision 4a: Nearly everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions,
whose conditions are not so severe as to contraindicate inversion, would
disagree with you.

David

"David Cohen" wrote:

Revision 4a: Nearly everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions,
whose conditions are not so severe as to contraindicate inversion, would
disagree with you.

Some folks need to be different.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:27:52 -0600, elzinator
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:24:24 GMT, David wrote:

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:03:02 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:59:35 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John M. Williams" wrote in
message
.. .
"David" wrote:

Your comments about back machines are valid. My company actually
designed
the Bioflex unit and we began manufacturing it in Australia 12
years
ago.

Hooboy! There's the hook. So, in reality, you're a spammer,
correct?

No in reality this would never have come up were it not for someone's
particular inquiry and wishing to have one - I never mentioned it last
time
we had this 'debate' - I had plenty of opportunities to promote this
if I
had wanted to - the website I gave is not even my own. - so that
charge
is
totally wrong and unfair - every post that Will makes promotes his
products.


First you blast Brink for criticizing physicians, only to later
reveal
your prejudice: you son is a physician.

Now you blast inversion tables, without any scientific evidence to
back up your claims that they are "crap and are not effective," as
well as your claims that they are "dangerous and counter productive"
at full inversion. Only at the end of this thread do you reveal
that
YOUR COMPANY produces the alternative 90/90 unit that you favor.

I feel really bad - I will have to go out and shoot myself. I gave you
the
reasons for my statements - backed them up with logic. the logic is
irrefutable as I noticed that you have not attempted to argue the
points.
Not much more I can do. If you're not happy with that then **** the
hell
off


You see what I mean David?

I think he just likes to do battle - whatever issue, right or wrong -


Problem is that he is a pompous old ******* that thinks he is always
right - which he's not!!

It is his training as a lawyer - you need to be combative. In this case it
is amusing that he defends the old ideas. It is like the old codger who
swears by his manual treadmill that he has had for 40 years - won;t hear of
these fancy new ideas about motorized treadmills.

A good lawyer knows when to leave it at the office.


I gather you are suggesting the Williams is not a good lawyer!!

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:27:52 -0600, elzinator
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:24:24 GMT, David wrote:

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:03:02 GMT, "David"
wrote:

[......]


Problem is that he is a pompous old ******* that thinks he is always
right - which he's not!!

It is his training as a lawyer - you need to be combative. In this case
it
is amusing that he defends the old ideas. It is like the old codger who
swears by his manual treadmill that he has had for 40 years - won;t hear
of
these fancy new ideas about motorized treadmills.

A good lawyer knows when to leave it at the office.


I gather you are suggesting the Williams is not a good lawyer!!

I don;t think Elzi is that kind of girl!

"David Cohen" wrote in message
ink.net...

"elzinator" wrote
David Cohen wrote:
"David" wrote

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.

Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree
with
you.

Not everyone, David. They are contraindicated for me. Can't even do
traction on my neck. I know of a few others in the same 'boat.'

Revision 4a: Nearly everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac
compressions,
whose conditions are not so severe as to contraindicate inversion, would
disagree with you.

David

This was revision 4a? I must have lost track - must have missed 3c? What was
3c?

Originally Posted by John HUDSON

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:44:15 GMT, "David Cohen"
wrote:


"David" wrote
"John M. Williams" wrote
"David" wrote:
wrote:
Greetings

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be too
inappropriate. (I have seen posted on this group numerous references
to inversion tables.) This is not technically a cross-post, as I've
waited over the weekend for responses from the
alt.support.chronic-pain
group I originally posted to.

I'd like to buy best inversion table 2017 but am having difficulty finding
enough reviews to be able to make any sort
of informed decision about which one to get.

I did find a handful of reviews at epinions.com, and they were
helpful,
but 5
opinions on two different tables is hardly enough for me. Has anyone
seen any
other site online that has more user reviews?

There are two basic systems of inversion that you can do at home on a
piece
of equipment.
Ones where you clamp by your ankles - these are basically crap and are
not
effective.

No, David. We have been through this before. You just don't like
standard inversion tables. I challenged you to come up with something
in the literature which supported your claim, and you couldn't. All
you could say is that you talked to a PT who liked 90/90 inversion
better, and you thought it was better for feeble elderly people.

A couple of studies have shown 90/90 inversion to be effective. Many
more studies support the effectiveness and safe use of standard
inversion tables amongst normotensive people with spinal issues. So
your claim that they are "basically crap and are not effective" is, at
best, uninformed.

It seems that your personal prejudices in medical matters are really
shining through these days.

For effective traction there has to be enough downward force - the
standard
inversion table only allows inversion at a 45 deg angle - that is stated
in
the users manuals for these machines - the reason you are limited to 45
degrees is because of the how the clamp works around your ankles. If the
angle is greater then constriction of circulation occurs and the whole
process becomes dangerous and counter productive. The sort of machine that
we like here is called Bioflex
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/fixmyback.htm

Actually the old and feeble would find this difficult - (I don;t know
where
you got that from that I made a reference to 'old and feeble')

The benefit of the Bioflex is that you hang by your upper legs - you can
get max traction and it basically only hits your spine - plus you can
exercise in a safe way with legs bent - for doing ab crunches and back
extensions which the other machines don;t allow.

Inverted crunches are completely safe. You are confusion the anatomy of
supine sit-ups with straight legs with free-hanging inversion.

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.

Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree with
you.

d
i
v
a
D


A very inventive signature given the subject matter!! ;o)

Your post is really very informative. I really loved it.