Yesterday, I published a post on Instagram in which I offered my reflections on the reasoning presented by another training provider regarding injuries. (You may click here to view the post.) In summary, I observed that the reasoning was affected by several logical flaws and inconsistencies. The result, I believe, was a portrayal of injuries that appeared narrow in scope and inclined towards exaggeration of their severity.
I do not believe the training provider intended any harm with their remarks. However, to offer a counterpoint, the material I was evaluating represented only a brief segment from a longer interview. As is often the case, it is difficult to convey complexity within such a limited timeframe. Even so, I maintain that capturing nuance remains essential. In this respect, I believe the training provider did not achieve that aim, or, given their apparent knowledge and experience, could reasonably have been expected to do so. Most notably, their assertion that injury is “a very easy mathematical equation” was inaccurate. Injury cannot be reduced to a single equation, nor can it be described as easy.
A commenter inquired how I might articulate the concept of a mechanism of injury, along with methods of training to prevent such injury, to an individual lacking technical background, doing so in a manner both comprehensible and respectful of nuance. I regarded the question as thoughtful and, having taken adequate time to reflect, I proceeded to offer the following response.
I stated that injury is a chain reaction, initiated by stress and processed through the body’s structural and control systems. It is not possible to eliminate all forms of stress or prevent every injury. However, we can enhance the body’s ability to endure them. By increasing strength, refining movement, and improving response times, we extend our margin of safety and reduce the likelihood of harm.
Thoughts?