Originally Posted by Si
In my experience, literal interpretation is not necessarily accurate or effective interpretation. I just don't think that many people can build movements (or just functional tension) based on an understanding of what muscles to contract. I have observed a lot of manual muscle testing. Some physicians and PT's will give the direction to the patient to resist their attempt to pull or push on a limb. Others will say to the patient to pull or push on a limb and try to overcome their resistance. It would be interesting to do a little study to find out which of these is generally more effective. It seems we would bet on different sides.
Pushing and pulling use different muscles. I would assume that they are testing for strength in different muscle groups.
Do I tell students which muscles to use? rarely if ever. But I do use the terms functional tension when appropriate, aloong with resisting forces, resistance to the foot moving to far forward, pulling the foot back, pulling both feet back, ect. ect. My guess is we aren't so far apart Si, until someone asks, how, how far, or why. Then maybe we part paths some.
For me these conversations here are not really what to teach, but more on what we need to know to teach effectively. There is nothing wrong with utilizing whatever cue works for an individual a long there is a clear understanding of why, how, and when, along with what is really happening, such as,,,,well you don't really pull the foot back, you just control where it is. then follow this with a short resonable explantion of where it needs to be.
On whether literal interpretation is accurate or effective, all I can say is that it is not my choice, it is not up to me, it is the student who brings literal interpretation into the equation. It is then my job to work with it and through it. Later, RicB.