In this article Fascia Research II in the International Journal of Therapeutic Massahge and Bodywork. Volume 2, number 2, september 2009, Tom Findley, colleague in medicine and in research on the fascia elucidates the themes and content of the 2nd International Congres on Fascia Research in 2009 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. It was on this congress that I introduced with great appraisal and acclamatie the concept of architecture””inthe domain of fascia research.
Fragment
Van der Wal makes the argument that muscles and ligaments cannot be viewed as separate structures next to each other, each acting independently to handle mechanical stresses across a joint. He realized that because ligaments can bear stress only when they are stretched fairly tight, ligaments can serve to stabilize joints only if the distance between the bones on each side of the joint remains fairly constant throughout the joint range of motion; however, only two joints in the body meet this criterion, and other joints are forced to use a different mechanism. Using a three-dimensional computer reconstruction program and a novel dissection approach that maintains the connections between muscles and connective tissues, he was able to show that there are specialized connective tissue structures running between the muscles and the bone of origin or insertion. This dynamic connection between connective tissue and muscle he terms the “dynament”—a structural support that can adapt to changing distances between bones throughout the joint range of motion. Some muscles have these specialized connective tissue structures at the proximal end only, some at the distal end only, some at both ends—and some at neither end. Furthermore, analysis of mechanical force transfer through such structures shows that nerve endings are concentrated where the stresses are the highest, especially in the proximal or distal end of the “dynament.” This contrasts with the more traditional approach that describes the density of innervation by the named muscle, rather than by the type of load that that portion of the muscle or connective tissue is designed to bear. The nerve receptors have traditionally been divided into muscle or joint receptors; however, a continuum of receptor types can be seen across both tissues, defined by the types of stresses borne by the specific tissue. Van der Wal suggests four classes of nerve receptors: muscle spindles; Golgi tendon organs and Ruffini corpuscles; lamellated or paciniform corpuscles; and free nerve endings. The first three classes are found in muscles, and the latter three, in the connective tissue surrounding joints.
To read more, open the link below