okay, this is an anti-rec for Jeannie Di Bon

[kaberett]

I am now well over halfway through the book, and spent most of chapter four screeching to anyone who would listen about the extent to which either she is deliberately and cynically misrepresenting approaches that aren't Her Personal Programme in the interests of selling the latter, or she's just incompetent.

The actual suggested movements -- the strength-building and the stretching -- are totally reasonable, and also totally standard. It's the surrounding framing that has my eyebrows crawling into my hairline; I... tried to summarise and rapidly discovered I was launching into the full rant, and it's past bedtime, so let's start with: while there's a References section it's a whole 15 items long, and she's blithely saying "X states" or "Y says" as though the fact that something has been published in a single peer-reviewed paper means that it's unquestionably true, and of those fifteen one is a systematic review of any kind and... Several... are under the aegis of an organisation specialising in complementary medicine.

More details tomorrow, probably. With excerpts.

Comments

[kaberett]

........ her citation for ~the myth of core stability~ is an osteopath. this seems very fitting given the GOBSMACKING EXTENT of the internal contradictions in this chapter good GRIEF

okay okay okay alex it is time to go to BED go to BED and rant about this more TOMORROW

[vass]

Oh dear.

[sporky_rat]

blink WHAT?

[cesy]

Wow. Yes, I look forward to the full rant.

[lunabee34]

This reminds me of the time a friend wanted me to read a book about how iodine cures all medical ills and told me it was really backed by science, and I had to be, "Friend, the 'science' is all published in one wack-a-doo journal by almost entirely one person. This does not mean what you think it means."