It’s not magic, just an amazing process.

Want to hear what many clients say about RESET? Some of the more thought out testimonials are on this site’s testimonial page – please check them out. They are real, but they are thought out and polished by those who provided them. In reality, here’s what is most commonly uttered when people first experience RESET:
“This stuff is crazy!”
“You are like a voodoo doctor.”
“What the ?!!??!!?!”
“This is like magic!”
“I don’t get it, but I feel great!”

So why do I hear these types of statements blurted out all of the time? I believe there are two major reasons.

#1 RESET very commonly delivers fantastic results; even/especially when traditional approaches have failed. It’s usually very quick (typically within 4-5 sessions and sometimes even faster). It tends to be very obvious (most of our clients report that 90%+ of their aches and pains are gone after they’ve been fully RESET) and it’s very consistent (90%+ of our clients tell us they feel at least 50% better after being fully RESET).

#2 Also, RESET sessions look crazy. We use muscle testing (which looks crazy to many). We use bodily reflexes to draw out deeper movement dysfunctions (looks crazy to most). RESET brings clarity to understanding movement patterns better than any other system on the market and can therefore elicit strong and weak responses from the body just like most people flick light switches on and off at their homes (this looks crazy to nearly all). We use household products like soap, toothpaste, granola bars and cellphones to draw out deep dysfunctions of the body (this looks crazy to all!).

So yes, RESET is a radically different-for-all-the-right reasons approach to uncovering and resolving the causes behind faulty movement that tends to cause aches, pains and poor athletic performances.

Most of my clients seek out RESET due to the desperation they feel of having tried “everything else” and finding no relief from their aches and pains. Most of them have been seen by multiple MD’s, Chiro’s, PT’s, etc. Because these other approaches haven’t worked for them, by the time they find me, many of them are ready to write off RESET before we even get started. “How could THIS possibly work?” is what many of them are thinking initially. Some of these folks don’t even make it back in for a 3rd or 4th session, which is really too bad, because that’s when most of my clients begin to start feeling better.

I have personal insight with the frustration that goes along with not receiving help from traditional approaches having previously suffered with 13 years of back pain and basically being told to “stretch my hammie’s” by conventional practitioners. This lost hope that many clients/patients feel is quite common. When people have not been helped by mainstream approaches and then start believing that nothing will help, this unfair, yet understandable, skepticism of our approach ensues. Since the standard approaches didn’t work, does that mean RESET won’t? Of course not! In fact, this would be quite an illogical conclusion. The other stuff not working is actually why our functional restoration system may be exactly what will work. Nearly every potential root cause, other than neuromuscular integrity, has been essentially ruled out. Most clients that find me have never had their movement function (neuromuscular integrity) properly assessed with a process that can be accurately compared to RESET. For now, very few practitioners have the skills to do so. The good news is that, for most people, faulty movement is THE root cause behind their aches and pains and RESET is incredibly well designed process that helps resolve these issues.

What is the norm for RESET treatments?
Though it is an amazing process that does help 90%+ of our clients with their symptoms of pain and discomfort, it is not a magic pill. RESET is a systematic process to uncovering the layered dysfunctions that compromise our bodies’ ability to achieve optimal movement.
So how many sessions does a person need in order to be pain-free? There’s no way to accurately answer that question for the individual, but here’s my attempt to answer it for the masses.

My “average” client looks like this: 12-80 years old, in pain – acutely, in pain – chronically, 0-8 previous surgeries and they’ve typically tried a very traditional route prior to seeing me (1+ MD visits, 1+ PT approaches that lasted 1-2 months and possibly 1+ Chiro approaches that lasted 1+ months.

Session #1 – we ID 10+ joint motion abnormalities (4+ compensation patterns resolved). Improved symptoms of pain?: ~10% of clients.

Session #2 – we ID 8-12 joint motion abnormalities (3+ compensation patterns resolved). Improved symptoms of pain?: ~20% of clients.

Session #3 – we ID 6-10 joint motion abnormalities ((2+ compensation patterns resolved). Improved symptoms of pain?: ~50% of clients.

Session #4 – we ID 3-6 joint motion abnormalities (1-2 compensation patterns resolved).
Improved symptoms of pain?: ~70-80% of clients.

Session #5 – we ID 0-3 joint motion abnormalities (0-2 compensation patterns resolved). Improved symptoms of pain?: ~90% of clients.

Session #6+ – only needed for <10% of my clients.
Improved symptoms of pain?: 90%+ of clients

In the following video, you’ll get to hear a really neat success story. What makes it so compelling? Not only had Lisa tried different traditional approaches to resolve her pain issues, she had so many “hidden” movement dysfunctions that it actually required 4-5 “beyond the norm” sessions to get her fully “RESET”. Like I said earlier in this list. RESET is not a magic pill, it is a process. When we are able to finish the job we’ve started, RESET almost always over-delivers! Please take 1 minute to watch Lisa’s story.

Want your clients to send you emails like this?

Many of our students have been blowing the minds of a lot of their clients with their newfound RESET skills. Below are two recent examples of unsolicited email testimonials that a couple of our students received and shared with me.

Nancy Johnson (LaGrange Park, IL) finished her RESET education in June and Nile Bratcher (Chicago, IL) started his education the last week of August. It’s so cool to see how quickly our students can learn these life-changing RESET skills and make unbelievable progress with their clients.

******************************************************************

Nancy,
Thank you for putting my life on a more pain-free path. It is certainly a major milestone to have better posture, more strength and properly attuned muscles that only took six sessions of RESET. Although I will never understand the techniques or methods, the results were always positive and I was not going to fool with success. After the first session, I became such a believer that I blindly trusted your instructions even the ones that made me laugh because I continually felt better. The isometric exercises in my homework were simple and made for a pain free week between sessions.

RESET is a great process delivered by an excellent trainer. As I go about my daily routines, I reflect back on how fortunate I am to have met you, your expertise and your new process.

Thank you again for including me in your initial efforts and best of luck with RESET. You certainly deserve a mighty round of applause. As I continue my muscle and core toning, I am and will remain a talking ad for you and your new miracle making process.

See you in the Spring,
Dave McGuire
******************************************************************

Nile,
I’ve had chronic low back pain since 8th grade – meaning every morning I wake up I’m stiff and sometimes pissed off cause it hurts so bad – and after lifting it’s always worse.

This morning was surreal – I had no back pain.

You are the master!

THANK YOU.
Alyssa

RESET impresses MD’s

Since we began teaching the RESET Education Program in April 2012, I’ve only shown it to about 125-150 industry professionals. Thus far, we’ve had 37 students come through the program from that population. Basically about 25% of our industry that have seen RESET have decided to enroll in our Education Program. Can’t wait to see where we are once we’ve shown this our revolutionary approach to 500, 1000, 10,000 industry pro’s.

A common question that I often get asked is “so what do MD’s think about your RESET system”? My typical response is something along the lines of “Because RESET is so new, not many Docs have actually seen or experienced it yet. But the ones that have seen it have been giving it very positive reviews.” But instead of just taking my word for it, check out the following video testimonial from Dr. Mike Moran, retired MD.

Can our interpretations of ROM be wrong?

Every corrective exercise system on the market that I’ve come across places very high value on some incarnation of a ROM assessment. In each instance, the intent of the ROM exams is to help practitioners make appropriate corrective exercise selections.

For example, some systems utilize dynamic ROM tests. Typically, practitioners of these systems seek to observe deviations from an idealized way of performing a specific exercise. A common exercise used would be a squat pattern variation. Possibly, while performing a system’s chosen version of a squat, a client’s knee may track inward too dramatically or there’s too much forward motion of the trunk (according to the specific testing parameters of the system). Typically it’s noted and a series of “correctives” are undertaken to “correct” the aberrant motion that’s unpleasing to the trained eye of the system’s proponents.

Other systems on the market are incorporating static ROM tests. This can take the form of a posture analysis or maybe it’s a joint by joint approach to assess active/passive ROM that is then typically compared to a population standard or for an individual’s assymetries. Depending upon the clinician’s findings with the ROM exam, specific exercises are then selected as correctives that attempt to address the undesirable ROM findings.

I take no issue with a system for using dynamic or static ROM assessments if they are using these tools properly. What do I mean by properly? ROM assessments are wonderfully useful tools for confirming functional improvement outcomes for our clients and patients after performing correctives but horrible at setting up consistently effective corrective exercise strategies. I now understand that trusting ROM assessments as corrective exercise guides leads to the generation of very inconsistent strategies (it’s nearly a 50/50 proposition). If half of the time a ROM exam is giving us a great plan and the other half of the time it’s leading us down the wrong path, doesn’t it rather nicely explain why some clients respond really well while others seem to never get really amazing results?

Polar Opposites 
Let’s check out a couple of scenarios that will illustrate the extreme unreliability of ROM exams as corrective strategy-makers.

We’ll say that Client A’s body is favoring a posterior pelvic tilt (PPT). Every movement that Client A attempts is performed from a starting posture that includes a PPT. Generally speaking, a person favoring PPT would probably have “active” hip extensors and lumbar flexors and “underactive” hip flexors and spinal errectors. Tight hammie’s/weak hip flexors could obviously lead to limited a hip flexion ROM exam result.

Conversely, we’ll say that Client B’s body is favoring an anterior pelvic tilt (APT). Every movement that this client attempts is performed from a starting posture that includes an APT. In contrast to the PPT favoring client, an APT favoring client will probably have “active” hip flexors and lumbar extensors and some “under-active” hip extensors and lumbar flexors. If a person is in possession of “extra-active” hip flexors/lumbar extensors, it’s pretty easy to see that there could be a degree of approximation of the ASIS and anterior femur from the get-go. This person is starting all movments from a position of hip flexion. Due to these active hip flexors and lumbar extensors, a common and realistic end result for this person could also be limited hip flexion observation during a ROM assessment.

These are two opposite scenarios (PPT and APT) that can yield the exact same observation – limited hip flexion. So how can we trust what we are seeing? How should we interpret this conundrum? I say we don’t. Dropping the idea that ROM exams are useful as corrective exercise strategy-makers is a tough but necessary step if corrective exercise professionals want to start delivering amazing results with very high consistency!

NO ROM? Now what?
My suggestion is that we start identifying patterns of movement that, when motion into a specific pattern is encouraged (passively or actively), result in either increased or decreased efficiency. Within the RESET system, we call a pattern that increases neuromuscular inefficiency the compensatory pattern. The polar opposite pattern, which not only incorporates opposite motions but also generally yields improved functionality (increased neuromuscular efficiency), we call the RESET or restoration pattern. When one accurately identifies these two patterns, they’re on their way to delivering consistently amazing corrective exercise results with nearly all clients.

Corrective exercise pro’s need to begin grasping the importance of eschewing ROM as meaningful guides. We need to start gravitating towards the idea that accurately identifying compensatory and restorative patterns through neuroproprio-response testing is the key to any effective corrective strategy. Once we do this, the entire industry will see a surge in corrective exercise results and a corresponding interest in utilizing truly corrective exercise to get the most out of our active lifestyles.

In the following video, you will see a very obvious ROM asymmetry. What’s interesting is that when I pursued the classical corrective approach, poor outcomes ensued. When I pursued a counter-intuitive (for most) approach, a good outcome was realized. Please check this out!

Elite hockey athlete receives dramatic results with her herniated disc!

Check out this new RESET testimonial from Sydnee. Sydnee is an elite hockey player that’s received big-time offers to play collegiately (including from the reigning back-to-back NCAA Champs – University of Minnesota). She has committed to attend and play for Cornell.

This past summer, during a strength training session, she injured her back. One notable correction in this video –> Sydnee mistakenly said that she has a bulge in her low back, but she actually has a herniation and multiple bulges. Traditional therapies had been unsuccessful at alleviating her symptoms. This testimonial was recorded directly after her 2nd RESET session. I always say this, because it’s true – “I’ve got the best job in the world!”

FYI… we didn’t have her do crunches, foam-rolling, planks, manual therapies, stretches, supplements, etc – just straight up RESET.

Check this out!

Does your corrective exercise approach measure up?

Over the past few years, a growing segment of our industry has become increasingly concerned with “corrective exercise”. Count me as somebody that’s seen the need and value of this growing trend. Not only have I learned and utilized corrective exercise systems with clients, I’ve also created what I believe will become recognized as the best corrective exercise system on the market. It’s safe to say that I’m a fan of correctives.¬†

But conversely, my background and experience also makes me a critic in the whole corrective exercise conversation. I’ve seen amazing approaches and horrible approaches to correctives. Since I have personally witnessed the incredibly vital and transformative role of correctives in many of my client’s lives, my criticisms are rooted in the interest of seeing the great approaches prosper and the poor approaches go away.

One of the main problems associated with corrective exercise is the lack of a consensus definition. It’s hard to argue for, argue against, implement, discard, praise, navigate, understand, ponder, bash or create corrective exercise approaches when we don’t have an actual definition. Before I offer up my attempt at a definition for corrective exercise, let’s first lay out a general overview as to why the body compensates.

Why compensation?
Our bodies were designed to naturally choose efficient actions and processes over inefficient ones. Understand that the normal, natural, unflawed mechanical state of the body is one that is remarkably efficient in orchestrating all sorts of movement complexities. Anyone of us that has experienced a short- or long-term symptom of back pain no longer take for granted how complex mundane tasks (walking, getting out of bed, climbing a set of stairs, sneezing, etc.) really are.

So most of us start off moving pretty well and then life happens. Due to overly stressful situations (trauma, injury, nutritional deficiencies, etc.), we acquire our first joint motion abnormality (JMA). One amazing design feature of the body is that it senses this movement flaw and begins using an adapted way of moving to avoid using or visiting the joint motion abnormality. It’s pretty amazing how we are built to do this and do it so automatically. An example of this would be that after we’ve stubbed a toe, we start limping. No need to attend limping classes with other recent toe-stubbers, the body just adapts for the JMA which was caused by trauma and we’re instantly limping around like we’re being paid to do so.

This adaptation is useful in the short-term because it is very effective at causing the body to avoid utilizing traumatized tissue that may need some time to heal.

But, long-term, it’s a problem. This adapted way of moving is commonly called compensatory movement and it is less efficient than the natural unimpeded manner in which we were “all” designed to move. Our physical performances (strength, stamina, balance, agility, coordination, etc.) decline. To make matters worse, once we are compensating, we begin developing imbalances which can lead to more JMA’s that cause us to layer our compensated movements. We become more and more inefficient, injury-prone, inflamed and in pain.

Defining “corrective exercise”
From this whole JMA->compensation->pain/injury/poor performance chain reaction discussion, can we pull out important pieces and create a definition for corrective exercise?

Initially
Normal, efficient movement

Then,
Joint motion abnormality(s) (JMA’s)
*strong aversion of the body to utilize this position

And then,
Adapted movement pattern (compensation)
*less efficient than normal movement but still preferred, by the CNS, over utilizing JMA’s

Finally
Less efficiency
Less athletic
Pain
Higher risk of injury
Additional JMA’s more easily acquired

RESET’s definition of corrective exercise would be as follows:
“Corrective exercise is exercise that restores functionality to joint motion abnormalities, prioritized by most to least recently acquired, so that there is a diminished need for the body to compensate.”

I think it’s super important to note that the most recently acquired joint motion abnormality directly impacts how a person is presently compensating and should therefore be the primary aim of any practitioner claiming to be involved in corrective exercise. We can’t work on a 10-year old pattern until we’ve first dealt with the 2-year old, 6-year old and 9-year old pattern (for example).

Once we restore functionality to the most recently acquired joint motion abnormality, the reason behind a person’s current adapted manner of movement will be resolved. We are then free to uncover deeper and deeper joint motion abnormalities that comprise the complex root system of this tangled compensatory mess that most of us must use as our “posture/movement default setting”. Based on the consistently amazing results that I’ve seen with RESET, in comparison to other systems, I believe that this detangling aspect to be an absolute essential component of a world-class corrective exercise approach.

Here is RESET’s “9 Essential Components of a World-Class Corrective Exercise System”

1. It eschews Right/Left bodily comparisons.
Since nearly all of us are compensating, the idea of comprehensive joint neutrality (centration) isn’t a reality. Basically, most of our bodies can no longer find “true neutral”. Though it may look like it to our eyes (don’t trust those things – clothes, skin, fat, muscle and connective tissue all block our eyes from truly seeing what’s occurring at the joint level), realize that most of us are rarely in a “true neutral” position but instead are operating from an “apparent neutral” position (looks like we’re neutral but there are subtle joint displacements throughout the body which cause a variety of weaknesses/tightnesses throughout our joints).

Since we have no guarantee of “true neutral”, all Right to Left comparisons should be consider illogical and unreasonable. Trusting otherwise would be analogous to trusting a see-saw with an off-center fulcrum.

Common R:L comparisons in the industry are AROM (mobility), PROM (flexibility), strength, skill (think unloaded overhead squat and you’re watching for one or both knees to subjectively dive in too much. How much? You know, too much!). Due to joint displacement and the nearly countless ways for the body to adapt, these comparisons are invalid.

RESET’s suggestion:
Instead of viewing the body as a R vs L proposition, begin seeking to identify patterns of movement that encourage efficiency (restoration) and patterns that encourage inefficiency (compensation) and begin “working” within that thought process.

2. It uses BASIC, SENSIBLE and REALITY-BASED foundational patterns (part A).
The RESET system uses four patterns. These patterns are based upon the concepts of pronation (deceleration), supination (acceleration) and the four obvious quadrants of the body (upper right & left, lower right & left). They also reflect the primal ways of moving that are “blueprinted” into us.

“Sit” – all quadrant pronation
“Stand” – all quadrant supination
“Right Step” – lower right & upper left pronation; lower left & upper right supination
“Left Step” – lower left & upper right pronation; lower right & upper left supination

RESET’s suggestion:
If your current system utilizes more than or is divergent from these patterns, ask yourself this question “can my current ‘foundational patterns’ be broken down more simply into RESET’s common denominator patterns?”. If so, you should be able to see the value in keeping a broader perspective with the RESET patterns over your current patterns. If no was your answer, ask yourself a follow up question like this – “do my patterns make sense in light of how humans tend to move?”. I’m guessing the answer to that would be no.

3. Understands that confounding interpretations of ROM results exist.
In #1, we already covered how using R:L comparisons (whether it’s ROM, strength, skill, etc.) are illogical. Another reason to not use ROM assessment findings to plan a corrective strategy is that a joint lacking ROM tells you “how” but not “why”. A lack of ROM can come from at least 2 opposite causes.
a. Protective muscle guarding
b. The bones of the limited ROM joint are already approximated (not neutral to begin with)

These 2 ROM limitation causes are polar opposites. For example:
i. The pelvis is displaced into a very mild (unobservable to the eye) posterior tilt (hypertonic spinal flexors and hip extensors) resulting in a limitation of hip flexion.
ii. The pelvis is displaced into a very mild (unobservable to the eye) anterior tilt (hypertonic spinal extensors & hip flexors) resulting in already approximated hip flexion which looks like a hip flexion ROM limitation.

These are two polar opposite example scenarios which can each present themselves as limited hip flexion. These conflicting interpretations of ROM are why I believe that they are the most confounding tools in our industry.

RESET’s suggestion:
Drop the ROM stuff as a guide and instead only use it as a pre- and post- corrective session validation of positive changes that you’re helping deliver.

4. It USES basic, sensible and reality-based foundational patterns (part B).
If your current approach doesn’t seek to view identified dysfunctions through the lens of movement patterns, much perspective can be lost. When perspective is lost, you might be zigging when you should be zagging. Consider the following example, if you aren’t viewing dysfunctions through a movement pattern “view finder”, you may think that “dysfunctional” R hip extension is THE problem when, in reality, R hip extension and all of it’s associated movements are encouraging inefficiency. This would make it a part of this clients’ current compensatory pattern. Doing R hip extension work for this person would actually encourage compensation.

RESET’s suggestion:
Truly corrective exercise systems desperately need basic, sensible and reality-based foundational patterns to bring perspective to your observations.

5. Identifying and addressing the most recently acquired joint motion abnormality (JMA) is the key to truly corrective exercise.
Since the body’s acquisition of a JMA is the root cause behind an adapted or compensated way of moving, no system can rightly call itself “corrective” if it can not or does not accurately identify the body’s most recent JMA. Period.

This involves:
*Accurately categorizing compensatory and restorative patterns of movement.
*Accurately identifying the JMA within the restorative pattern.
*Addressing the JMA and then checking your work to ensure positive outcomes were achieved.

RESET’s suggestion:
Make sure your system identifies compensatory vs restorative patterns and that your system unquestionably finds the most recent JMA so that you can effectively address and check your corrective approach. This is exactly why I believe that most industry pro’s should and eventually will learn the RESET system.

6. Can your system draw out older JMA’s?
Unless you are content with your corrective approach spanning dozens of sessions for most of your clients (which you shouldn’t be – unethical and bad for business), you will want to be able to draw out older and older JMA’s to identify and address. It’s the proverbial peeling of the onion. All of your clients’ have their own unique mechanical history. You need to be able to accurately and sequentially draw out their story.

RESET’s suggestion:
Develop methods that will allow a session to “keep going”. Or… learn the RESET system.

7. Corrective exercise should yield immediate change and “corrective homework” duration should be measured in hours.
If you are actually pinpointing each individuals’ most recently acquired JMA’s, part of the reward is the speed and brevity in which JMA’s return to normal functionality. Once you learn how to ensure that you’ve accurately found the most recent JMA, the corrective exercise piece only takes a matter of seconds to properly address the JMA. Seconds! It occurs so quickly because the body is very willing to utilize the position of the JMA once the appropriately chosen corrective exercise allows it to feel comfortable doing so.

On the other hand, if you think that you keep finding “difficult-to-resolve” faulty movements that require weeks and months of the same correctives, more than likely, it’s an indication that you are not identifying and addressing your clients’ JMA’s at all. Chances are that you have not cornered the market on all of the “difficult cases” out there. Be honest and realize that if you feel that you are seeing a lot of difficult cases, it’s probably telling you that your approach is very flawed. I’ve seen all kinds of cases (chronic pain, acute pain, disc herniations, tendonitis, plantarfasciitis, etc.) respond quickly and favorably to RESET and yet I’ve never had to ask anyone to do correctives for longer than a few hours after each session.

8. Assesses the individual – not the condition or the activity.
This mindset is displayed online incessantly and I’m sure you have seen it too. Articles with titles along the lines of: “5 hip mobility exercises that will make you run like a gazelle”, “Have a pain-free basketball season with these easy drills” or “Mobilize the lower thoracic region to clear up your neck pain” are ones that I’ve made up, but you get the idea. Now I’m not saying that the people that write these types of articles are saying anything specifically wrong or that they have never helped anyone with their approach. It’s quite possibly the opposite. They probably have helped some (but nowhere close to all) people with their approach and are now churning out articles for the masses.

Here’s why I think these articles aren’t very helpful and actually undermine truly corrective exercise approaches. A one size fits all approach definitely isn’t what true corrective exercise is about. Each person’s body has very specific needs and a very specific history of compensatory movement. These specific-to-the-sport/activity/condition articles display an obvious lack of understanding in terms of individualized needs. I’m sorry it’s impossible to write practical 1-page articles on corrective exercise that applies to all of us. Also, tailoring it to a condition or an activity is not even close to specific enough where it should be taken as advice by the masses. When an online fitness/rehab “expert’s” sure-fire approach doesn’t help a desperate for help person that could be helped by a solid, individualized approach, their trust and hope has been betrayed. The masses will begin (or maybe they already have begun) to tune out a sound corrective exercise message.

9. Amazing results should be commonplace.
As a corrective exercise professional, your approach should be very regularly delivering amazing results. I’m not talking about 10% or 50% of your clients either. I’m talking the vast majority of the clients that seek you out for corrective help should be walking away, after 1-5 sessions, with a pretty amazing story to tell others.

How can I say this? It’s exactly what I’ve been seeing for years with RESET. If a client is seeking you out for corrective help, they’ve probably already seen at least 1 medical doctor and/or PT that can rule out structural damage. Maybe they’ve already seen a Chiropractor whose area of expertise is restoring the proper structural positioning of joints. So unless the client coming in to see you has an undiagnosed structural issue or some undiagnosed inflammatory disease or a poor diet that’s causing very serious inflammatory response, YOU should be the one delivering knockout punch after knockout punch to these joint motion abnormalities that are causing compensation and some of your clients’ symptoms of pain. If you aren’t getting amazing results with an amazing high % of your clients with corrective exercise, again, it’s highly indicative that you aren’t really performing “corrective exercise”.

RESET’s suggestion:
Take a very serious look at the first 8 items on this list and honestly ask yourself if your corrective exercise approach is measuring up. If it’s not, fix those aspects of your approach. Or… again, you really should consider learning RESET.

Anecdotal evidence that’ll punch you in the face!

I recently read an article regarding the health benefits of consuming raw milk that resulted in some fairly heated debate in the comments section of that particular article. One person was arguing that anecdotal evidence isn’t to be trusted and only evidence coming from research conducted at established institutions is be trusted. Another person, named Tom Hines, replied back and I thought he hit it out of the park. His reply was “Getting punched in the the face hurts, but you’d be hard pressed to find research to tell you that”! Hard to argue against sound logic like that. Love it!

Evidence from both personal anecdotes and from university based research both have their place as both can bring some understanding and clarity to a topic. But here’s the thing, in the real world, where fitness and rehab professionals need to provide valuable products and services in order to entice others to actually pay you a fee, anecdotes are king! When you actually help customers, they tend to be happy about that and will end up attracting you more customers. But when you can’t provide value, you will either lose your business or you’d probably need to resort to unscrupulous means to stay afloat (false advertising, favors from friends in high places, etc.). If you want to be successful, you better have some anecdotal evidence. In fact, the more anecdotal evidence, the better.

Here’s a link to one really cool RESET anecdote from a few years ago (you may have to and paste this link into your browser). This was about 2 years prior to actually having a name for the system. Check out this amazing anecdote! => http://www.collegeinsider.com/madness/oakland.html

Below you will find just a few compelling statistical improvement anecdotes that RESET has helped produce with some of our more elite athletes. We didn’t even need to punch anyone in the face!

Year: 2009
Athlete: Milton Bradley, Chicago Cub

Slugging %
Non-RESET games: .395
Career: .373
RESET games: .800
Improvement: 205%

OBP
Non-RESET games: .395
Career: .453
RESET games: .455
Improvement: 15%

OBS
Non-RESET games: .790
Career: .826
RESET games: 1.255
Improvement: 59%

Batting average
Non-RESET games: .253
Career: .279
RESET games: .400
Improvement: 58%

Years: 2008-2011 (3 seasons)
Team: Valparaiso University Men’s Basketball Team

2009/10
Scoring differential
Non-RESET games (opponent RPI of 170): outscored by 0.9ppg
RESET games (opponent RPI of 171): outscored opponents by 3.9ppg
Improvement: +4.8ppg

Rebounds
Improvement: +1rpg in RESET games

FG%
Improvement: ~+7% in RESET games

FT %
Improvement: ~+18% in RESET games

2008 – 2011 (3 seasons)
Home conference record
Non-RESET games: 8-10 (.444)
RESET games: 9-2 (.818)
Improvement: 84%

Years: 2009-10
Team: Oakland University Men’s Basketball Team

Scoring differential
Non-RESET games (opponent RPI of 245): +10ppg
RESET games (opponent RPI of 188): +14.1ppg
Improvement: +4.1ppg

Rebounds
Improvement: +4.6 in RESET games

FG%
Improvement: ~+7% in RESET games

FT %
Improvement: ~+6% in RESET games