The athlete seemed to be back, then gets injured again during competition or training, without any contact with an opponent. These non-contact injuries can recur in the same area or occur elsewhere, and they keep happening again and again.
For athletes like this, Zeroka Seitai checks whether muscles that cannot move fully remain, and whether load is concentrating on the parts that compensate for them.
Along with the condition of the injured area, we look at the movements and the course of events that led to load falling on it.
What we have seen in practice in muscle strain cases
In cases described as muscle strains that we have worked with, we have often seen a mixture of stiff parts and soft parts that can move.
In Zeroka Seitai, we think that when stiff parts cannot lengthen and shorten sufficiently, the movable parts may compensate for them and load may concentrate there. We show this interpretation in two figures.
1. A figure showing the overall relationship
The movable parts compensate,
and load concentrates there
Movement in competition and training
adds further load
2. A figure for imagining the mixture within a muscle
— Zeroka Seitai’s interpretation —
Load concentrates on the movable parts
When stiff parts and movable parts are mixed
Stiff partMovable partUneven load- Stiffness is mixed
- The movable parts compensate
- Load becomes uneven
A schematic showing Zeroka Seitai’s interpretation. It is not a measurement of tissue condition or load.
Both figures are schematics showing Zeroka Seitai’s interpretation. They are not measurements of the condition, distribution or load inside actual tissue.
Even in situations such as running, planting the foot and changing direction during competition or training, we look not only at the overall stiffness of the muscle but at the mixture of stiff and movable parts. We regard this uneven load as one factor involved in athletes getting injured again in non-contact situations.
What we think happens when load concentrates
When heavy load falls on the movable parts, we consider two possibilities: it may lead to tissue damage, or sudden stiffness and difficulty moving may develop in the muscle. The figure below shows Zeroka Seitai’s interpretation. It includes the possibility that the two overlap, and it is not a figure for judging injury from symptoms or touch.
In Zeroka Seitai, we think muscle lock develops in situations where a muscle is trying to contract but cannot. We also interpret sudden stiffness in an area where load has concentrated from this perspective.
“Acute lock” here is Zeroka Seitai’s own interpretation of cause. It is not the same as tissue damage from a muscle strain, and we do not decide which one it is from symptoms or touch alone. Whether there is damage, and to what degree, is treated as a medical assessment and kept separate from Zeroka Seitai’s interpretation.
What we check even when imaging shows no clear injury
Even when imaging shows no clear injury, the athlete may have pain or difficulty moving.
The Munich consensus statement on muscle injuries also classifies, separately from injuries with clear fibre disruption on imaging, conditions in which pain or functional limitation occurs without clear disruption. Munich consensus statement (2013)
However, this classification does not demonstrate Zeroka Seitai’s “muscle lock”.
We do not conclude that something is “acute lock” simply because imaging shows no clear injury. We compare the quality and distribution of stiffness, the movement, the situation in which the problem occurred, and the changes after our response.
| Kept separate | Content |
|---|---|
| Medical assessment | Whether there is injury and to what degree, diagnosis, and the care required |
| What we check in hands-on sessions | The quality and distribution of muscle stiffness, difficulty moving, and changes before and after our response |
| Zeroka Seitai’s interpretation | How mixed stiffness, concentrated load and muscle lock relate to the movement problem |
Checking the injured area and the problem creating the load
We also distinguish between re-injury in the same place and injury in a different place.
| What we check | What we look at |
|---|---|
| The injured area | Whether stiffness, or an inability to move fully, remains |
| Areas that were compensating | Whether the muscles that have been compensating have also developed stiffness or difficulty moving |
| Distribution of stiffness | How stiff and movable parts are mixed |
| Actual movement | What is happening in the situation where the injury occurred, or in movements the athlete finds difficult |
| Condition after load | Whether stiffness or difficulty moving returns as training progresses |
Even after the pain settles, we check that the necessary movement is possible and that other areas are not being forced to compensate for it.
From practice | How we have responded to recurring problems
In our work with athletes, we have checked the injured area together with the areas that were compensating, and planned the area, method and sequence of our response with emphasis on the problem we interpret as the source of the load.
The changes we confirmed in the muscles and movement are kept separate from any test of how far the rate of re-injury can be reduced.
Check the movement and history of the problem, and the condition of the muscles
Checking the areas that were compensating, and setting priorities, is explained in more detail in A-4; reviewing why stiffness returns is explained in B-1.