I loved this explanation too. Especially how you debunk the myth of the discs creating space. Biotensegrity has informed my somatic practice. I've always wondered how to explain that it's not the discs but the force distribution throughout. The tension and compression EVERYWHERE. I can share your video instead.
Thank you for this video and your clear explaination Maren. The tensegrity model with the elastic spine is a revalation. I hope that you continue to add more vertebrae and would love to feel and see the movement that this enables!
I love it! Much more respectful in tone than your first video so that you for that :-) And I love the vertebra with the rubber bands! The first half makes the point that a stack of boxes needs stabilization to not fall over when tipped, and that tension components on the side would be one way to do this. Yes this is correct and one of the main mechanisms by which the spine stabilizes. So no argument there. I don’t really understand why you didn’t make the straps nice and taut like spinal stabilizers. You seem to think that adding any tension to the compression structure would somehow be cheating. Of course nice taut straps would perform perfectly well in any position, just like the spine does. In any event, the viewer needs to decide - is the spine more like a stack of compression components (the vertebra) with nice taut stabilizing tension components on the sides (muscles, ligaments, and connective tissue) or like floating sticks between the connective tissue. To me it defies common sense to go with the latter as fun as that model is. Are you arguing that any addition of any tension components to a compression structure turns it into a tensegrity structure? If so then that is a pretty broad definition of tensegrity - I would even include reinforced concrete in that definition. If you are indeed going with that definition, then there is no need to go further with the debate since I don’t think anyone disagrees that the body is a combination of compression and tension components. You argue that the point is not to be anatomically correct but to “highlight the balance of internal forces.” It is true that not all useful models of the spine are anatomically correct. My argument was that tensegrity models need to fundamentally distort the bones of the spine in order that they function as tensegrity structures. So that at least that level of anatomical correctness seems required. Luckily you go for anatomically correct in your last experiment, which is my favorite - (and I’m not being sarcastic). You really take up the challenge. You say “if the vertebra can be suspended, there is tensegrity”. Yes, I basically agree with this and love that you are going for it with real vertebra. I’m trying to figure out how you did it actually. Here is my best guess. Have a look at the shot at 4:42. Do you see that giant clump of elastic bands, mostly yellow and green, under the facet joints? What are they doing there? As far as I can see they are either using the fact that the facets do indeed *very slightly* cross (see the comments under my video) or they are bunched up to create a springy rubber compression effect. Either way, you’ve got to admit that clump is a little weird and anatomically a stretch (no pun intended). If you’ve actually made use of the slight overlap in facets then you seem to have a model in which the entire weight of the spine will be suspended by some tiny fibers connecting the facets. Ouch! So I while agree that you’ve suspended the vertebra with rubber bands, I’m not convinced that a) the tension components at the facet joints won’t experience an absurd amount of tension and/or b) that the rubber bands are not being squeezed to create a rubbery compression effect. If you have really done it without b), then I congratulate you on finding, potentially, a tiny bit of tensegrity-like effect via the facets. But does this change the spine from being mainly a compression structure with stabilizing tension components on the side? No. By the way, how about including a link to my video so that readers can decide for themselves? :-)
Dr. Johnson, We don't know each other in person and it is not at all up to you to praise or criticize my tone. As for my respect, it is not for you but for the people who do serious research on biotensegrity. My respect is to people who want to learn about biotensegrity and might be misled by pseudoscientific fake physics. My respect is to those people who always have some minutes and some coloured pens to answer questions on biotensegrity seriously. But to work through your first point as well: your first sentences show a lack of manners as the rest of your comment contains toxic positivity and back-handed compliments which are verbal micro aggressions. If you didn't know that, now you do. Thought someone should tell you. Now to the content parts: Your point was, that tensegrity would add too much compression on the bones. This is funny, because bones are made exactly for resisting compression in themselves instead of directing it against each other. They even become stronger under compression, did you know? If you state that there is compression between the bones, you say there is compression in the joints - or what else do you think is between two bones? If you say, that tension would add too much compression there, you seem to make it without. That was the reason for my experimental setup. If you didn't want to say that and instead think there should be tension, then where to do you think goes the compression? My setup showed, that in motion there is compression anyway. So this was a funny point in your video and not in mine. If you have tension created by muscles always and everywhere, you have always and everywhere compression and waste of energy. If the muscles give tone only when needed, you support a very vulnerable model of the body. My thought. Your „straps nice and taut“ in a spine give load on parts that are not made for that. If you come back again to cables and struts, sorry, you really don't get it, do you? I just showed you that it is neither about struts nor about single cables and the only funny thing is to image how your pile of compression elements climbs on trees or gallopps through the prairie. Your model doesn't work on quadrupeds, did you know that? And it doesn't work on birds. And all the other models except biotensegrity don't. You ask me if I'm „arguing that any addition of any tension components to a compression structure turns it into a tensegrity structure?“ I never wrote or said this and I'd like to know how this silly question comes to you. Tension in a compression-based modell adds compression BETWEEN the compression elements and that's the place where it should not be. In a tensegrity there is compression IN the compression elements where it belongs to. If you don't understand that difference, „then there is no need to go further with the debate“ since you are missing minimal basic understanding of tensegrities and biotensegrity. Here is another proof for lack of understanding: You try to find out, how I did it instead of trying to understand how nature would do it, how the body could do it. The rubber bands can't do what fascia does because they can't connect with the bones. But don't you think that the body has better ways to solve this (as it is obviously possible) and that assessing its possibilities in such a limited way like you do is human hubris? You look at the smallest parts and can't see the interaction of the whole. Following your argument, running, jumping, working and dynamic moving in spirals off the vertical is „outch“. All this is not about you. I don't want to convince you, what for? It is unimportant if you understand or support what I showed and explained in my video. The video was made for people who have difficulties to answer such stuff as you spread. They need a chance to understand and to rebuild my model if they like to. This reply is not for you too. It is just for people who want to know. I will not link your video. Its full title and your name are mentioned in the video so everyone can find you. You have been cited correctly what is more than you did in your video.
I loved this explanation too. Especially how you debunk the myth of the discs creating space. Biotensegrity has informed my somatic practice. I've always wondered how to explain that it's not the discs but the force distribution throughout. The tension and compression EVERYWHERE. I can share your video instead.
Thank you for this video and your clear explaination Maren. The tensegrity model with the elastic spine is a revalation. I hope that you continue to add more vertebrae and would love to feel and see the movement that this enables!
I love it! Much more respectful in tone than your first video so that you for that :-) And I love the vertebra with the rubber bands!
The first half makes the point that a stack of boxes needs stabilization to not fall over when tipped, and that tension components on the side would be one way to do this. Yes this is correct and one of the main mechanisms by which the spine stabilizes. So no argument there. I don’t really understand why you didn’t make the straps nice and taut like spinal stabilizers. You seem to think that adding any tension to the compression structure would somehow be cheating. Of course nice taut straps would perform perfectly well in any position, just like the spine does.
In any event, the viewer needs to decide - is the spine more like a stack of compression components (the vertebra) with nice taut stabilizing tension components on the sides (muscles, ligaments, and connective tissue) or like floating sticks between the connective tissue. To me it defies common sense to go with the latter as fun as that model is.
Are you arguing that any addition of any tension components to a compression structure turns it into a tensegrity structure? If so then that is a pretty broad definition of tensegrity - I would even include reinforced concrete in that definition. If you are indeed going with that definition, then there is no need to go further with the debate since I don’t think anyone disagrees that the body is a combination of compression and tension components.
You argue that the point is not to be anatomically correct but to “highlight the balance of internal forces.” It is true that not all useful models of the spine are anatomically correct. My argument was that tensegrity models need to fundamentally distort the bones of the spine in order that they function as tensegrity structures. So that at least that level of anatomical correctness seems required.
Luckily you go for anatomically correct in your last experiment, which is my favorite - (and I’m not being sarcastic). You really take up the challenge. You say “if the vertebra can be suspended, there is tensegrity”. Yes, I basically agree with this and love that you are going for it with real vertebra. I’m trying to figure out how you did it actually. Here is my best guess. Have a look at the shot at 4:42. Do you see that giant clump of elastic bands, mostly yellow and green, under the facet joints? What are they doing there? As far as I can see they are either using the fact that the facets do indeed *very slightly* cross (see the comments under my video) or they are bunched up to create a springy rubber compression effect. Either way, you’ve got to admit that clump is a little weird and anatomically a stretch (no pun intended). If you’ve actually made use of the slight overlap in facets then you seem to have a model in which the entire weight of the spine will be suspended by some tiny fibers connecting the facets. Ouch!
So I while agree that you’ve suspended the vertebra with rubber bands, I’m not convinced that a) the tension components at the facet joints won’t experience an absurd amount of tension and/or b) that the rubber bands are not being squeezed to create a rubbery compression effect. If you have really done it without b), then I congratulate you on finding, potentially, a tiny bit of tensegrity-like effect via the facets. But does this change the spine from being mainly a compression structure with stabilizing tension components on the side? No.
By the way, how about including a link to my video so that readers can decide for themselves? :-)
Dr. Johnson,
We don't know each other in person and it is not at all up to you to praise or criticize my tone. As for my respect, it is not for you but for the people who do serious research on biotensegrity. My respect is to people who want to learn about biotensegrity and might be misled by pseudoscientific fake physics. My respect is to those people who always have some minutes and some coloured pens to answer questions on biotensegrity seriously.
But to work through your first point as well: your first sentences show a lack of manners as the rest of your comment contains toxic positivity and back-handed compliments which are verbal micro aggressions. If you didn't know that, now you do. Thought someone should tell you.
Now to the content parts: Your point was, that tensegrity would add too much compression on the bones. This is funny, because bones are made exactly for resisting compression in themselves instead of directing it against each other. They even become stronger under compression, did you know? If you state that there is compression between the bones, you say there is compression in the joints - or what else do you think is between two bones? If you say, that tension would add too much compression there, you seem to make it without. That was the reason for my experimental setup. If you didn't want to say that and instead think there should be tension, then where to do you think goes the compression? My setup showed, that in motion there is compression anyway. So this was a funny point in your video and not in mine.
If you have tension created by muscles always and everywhere, you have always and everywhere compression and waste of energy. If the muscles give tone only when needed, you support a very vulnerable model of the body. My thought.
Your „straps nice and taut“ in a spine give load on parts that are not made for that.
If you come back again to cables and struts, sorry, you really don't get it, do you? I just showed you that it is neither about struts nor about single cables and the only funny thing is to image how your pile of compression elements climbs on trees or gallopps through the prairie. Your model doesn't work on quadrupeds, did you know that? And it doesn't work on birds. And all the other models except biotensegrity don't.
You ask me if I'm „arguing that any addition of any tension components to a compression structure turns it into a tensegrity structure?“ I never wrote or said this and I'd like to know how this silly question comes to you. Tension in a compression-based modell adds compression BETWEEN the compression elements and that's the place where it should not be. In a tensegrity there is compression IN the compression elements where it belongs to.
If you don't understand that difference, „then there is no need to go further with the debate“ since you are missing minimal basic understanding of tensegrities and biotensegrity.
Here is another proof for lack of understanding: You try to find out, how I did it instead of trying to understand how nature would do it, how the body could do it. The rubber bands can't do what fascia does because they can't connect with the bones. But don't you think that the body has better ways to solve this (as it is obviously possible) and that assessing its possibilities in such a limited way like you do is human hubris? You look at the smallest parts and can't see the interaction of the whole. Following your argument, running, jumping, working and dynamic moving in spirals off the vertical is „outch“.
All this is not about you. I don't want to convince you, what for? It is unimportant if you understand or support what I showed and explained in my video. The video was made for people who have difficulties to answer such stuff as you spread. They need a chance to understand and to rebuild my model if they like to. This reply is not for you too. It is just for people who want to know.
I will not link your video. Its full title and your name are mentioned in the video so everyone can find you. You have been cited correctly what is more than you did in your video.