Reformer pilates is steadily growing in popularity, with new studios opening regularly in major cities all over the world.

But what exactly is reformer pilates? And how does it compare with regular pilates and other types of exercise?

Classes aren’t cheap so let’s look at the potential benefits and drawbacks to help you decide if it’s right for you.

Pilates with special equipment

Pilates is a mode of exercise that focuses on core stability and flexibility, while also addressing muscular strength and endurance, balance and general fitness. At first glance, it might look a bit like yoga, with some more traditional weight training components thrown in.

Reformer pilates uses a piece of equipment called a “reformer”. This looks like a narrow bed that slides along a carriage, has straps to hold onto, and has adjustable springs that add resistance to movement. You perform pilates on the reformer to target specific muscle groups and movement patterns.

The reformer was first designed to help people recover from injuries. However, it has now become common for general fitness and even sports performance.

Unlike normal pilates, also known as “mat pilates”, which only uses your body weight, the reformer adds resistance, meaning you can change the difficulty according to your current level of fitness.

This not only provides a way to overload your muscles, but can make the exercise session more aerobically demanding, which has been proposed to improve cardiovascular fitness.

What are the benefits of reformer pilates?

Despite being around for decades, there is surprisingly little research looking at the benefits of reformer pilates. However, what we have seen so far suggests it has a similar effect to other modes of exercise.

Reformer pilates has been shown to help with weight loss, cause some small increases in muscle mass, and enhance cognitive function. All of these benefits are commonly seen when combining weight training and cardio into the same routine.

Similarly, among older adults, it has been shown to improve strength, enhance flexibility and may even reduce the risk of falling.

From a rehabilitation perspective, there is some evidence indicating reformer pilates can improve shoulder health and function, reduce lower back pain and increase flexibility.

Finally, there is some evidence suggesting a single session of reformer pilates can improve two key markers of cardiovascular health, being flow-mediated dilation and pulse wave velocity, while also improving cholesterol and insulin levels. This suggests reformer pilates could lead to long-term improvements in heart and metabolic health, although more research is needed to confirm this.

However, there are some key things to consider when discussing these benefits. Most of this research is quite exploratory and comes from a very small number of studies. So we do not know whether these findings will apply to everyone.

Very few studies compared reformer pilates to other types of exercise. Therefore, while it can improve most aspects of health and function, it’s unlikely reformer pilates provides the optimal mode of exercise for each individual component of physical fitness.

Traditional weight training, for example, will likely cause larger improvements in strength than reformer pilates. Similarly, stretching will probably make you more flexible. And running or cycling will make you fitter.

However, if you want a type of exercise that gives you broad overall health benefits, it could be a good option.

What are the downsides of reformer pilates

Reformer pilates is not for everyone.

First and foremost, classes can be expensive compared to other fitness options. You need to be doing at least two to three sessions per week of any type of exercise to maximise the benefits. So even if you can find a class for A$20 or $30, paying for two or three classes a week (or buying a weekly or monthly subscription) is a significant outlay.

Second, it’s not as accessible as other exercise. Even if you can afford it, not every town or suburb has a reformer pilates studio.

Third, the effectiveness of your workout is likely to be impacted by how competent your instructor is. There are a host of different pilates qualifications you can get in Australia, and some take much less time than others. With this in mind, it might be best to look for accredited pilates instructors, although this will further reduce the number of options you have available.

Finally, there is a learning curve. While you will get better over time, the exercise will likely be less effective during those first few weeks (or months) when you are getting used to the machine and the movements.

Is it right for you?

Reformer pilates can be a great addition to your fitness routine, especially if you’re looking for a low-impact way to build strength and flexibility.

But if you have more specific goals, you might need a more specific mode of exercise. For example, if you need to get stronger to improve your ability to manage your daily life, then strength training is probably your best bet. Likewise, if your goal is to run a marathon, you will get more specific benefits from running.

The cost and availability of reformer pilates make it less accessible for some people. With this in mind, if you are after similar benefits at a lower price point, mat pilates might be a better option. Not only does it have evidence suggesting it can improve strength and fitness, but it is something you can do at home if you find a good resource (YouTube could be a good starting point here).

Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia; Jacinta Brinsley, Exercise Physiologist and Postdoctoral Researcher in the Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity, University of South Australia, and Lewis Ingram, Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In an episode of ABC’s Four Corners this week, the use of spinal cord stimulators for chronic back pain was brought into question.

Spinal cord stimulators are devices implanted surgically which deliver electric impulses directly to the spinal cord. They’ve been used to treat people with chronic pain since the 1960s.

Their design has changed significantly over time. Early models required an external generator and invasive surgery to implant them. Current devices are fully implantable, rechargeable and can deliver a variety of electrical signals.

However, despite their long history, rigorous experimental research to test the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulators has only been conducted this century. The findings don’t support their use for treating chronic pain. In fact, data points to a significant risk of harm.

What does the evidence say?

One of the first studies used to support the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulators was published in 2005. This study looked at patients who didn’t get relief from initial spinal surgery and compared implantation of a spinal cord stimulator to a repeat of the spinal surgery.

Although it found spinal cord stimulation was the more effective intervention for chronic back pain, the fact this study compared the device to something that had already failed once is an obvious limitation.

Later studies provided more useful evidence. They compared spinal cord stimulation to non-surgical treatments or placebo devices (for example, deactivated spinal cord stimulators).

A 2023 Cochrane review of the published comparative studies found nearly all studies were restricted to short-term outcomes (weeks). And while some studies appeared to show better pain relief with active spinal cord stimulation, the benefits were small, and the evidence was uncertain.

Only one high-quality study compared spinal cord stimulation to placebo up to six months, and it showed no benefit. The review concluded the data doesn’t support the use of spinal cord stimulation for people with back pain.

What about the harms?

The experimental studies often had small numbers of participants, making any estimate of the harms of spinal cord stimulation difficult. So we need to look to other sources.

A review of adverse events reported to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration found the harms can be serious. Of the 520 events reported between 2012 and 2019, 79% were considered “severe” and 13% were “life threatening”.

We don’t know exactly how many spinal cord stimulators were implanted during this period, however this surgery is done reasonably widely in Australia, particularly in the private and workers compensation sectors. In 2023, health insurance data showed more than 1,300 spinal cord stimulator procedures were carried out around the country.

In the review, around half the reported harms were due to a malfunction of the device itself (for example, fracture of the electrical lead, or the lead moved to the wrong spot in the body). The other half involved declines in people’s health such as unexplained increased pain, infection, and tears in the lining around the spinal cord.

More than 80% of the harms required at least one surgery to correct the problem. The same study reported four out of every ten spinal cord stimulators implanted were being removed.

High costs

The cost here is considerable, with the devices alone costing tens of thousands of dollars. Adding associated hospital and medical costs, the total cost for a single procedure averages more than $A50,000. With many patients undergoing multiple repeat procedures, it’s not unusual for costs to be measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Rebates from Medicare, private health funds and other insurance schemes may go towards this total, along with out-of-pocket contributions.

Insurers are uncertain of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulators, but because their implantation is listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the devices are approved for reimbursement by the government, insurers are forced to fund their use.

Industry influence

If the evidence suggests no sustained benefit over placebo, the harms are significant and the cost is high, why are spinal cord stimulators being used so commonly in Australia? In New Zealand, for example, the devices are rarely used.

Doctors who implant spinal cord stimulators in Australia are well remunerated and funding arrangements are different in New Zealand. But the main reason behind the lack of use in New Zealand is because pain specialists there are not convinced of their effectiveness.

In Australia and elsewhere, the use of spinal cord stimulators is heavily promoted by the pain specialists who implant them, and the device manufacturers, often in unison. The tactics used by the spinal cord stimulator device industry to protect profits have been compared to tactics used by the tobacco industry.

A 2023 paper describes these tactics which include flooding the scientific literature with industry-funded research, undermining unfavourable independent research, and attacking the credibility of those who raise concerns about the devices.

It’s not all bad news

Many who suffer from chronic pain may feel disillusioned after watching the Four Corners report. But it’s not all bad news. Australia happens to be home to some of the world’s top back pain researchers who are working on safe, effective therapies.

New approaches such as sensorimotor retraining, which includes reassurance and encouragement to increase patients’ activity levels, cognitive functional therapy, which targets unhelpful pain-related thinking and behaviour, and old approaches such as exercise, have recently shown benefits in robust clinical research.

If we were to remove funding for expensive, harmful and ineffective treatments, more funding could be directed towards effective ones.

Ian Harris, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, UNSW Sydney; Adrian C Traeger, Research Fellow, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, and Caitlin Jones, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We talk about mental health more than ever, but the language we should use remains a vexed issue.

Should we call people who seek help patients, clients or consumers? Should we use “person-first” expressions such as person with autism or “identity-first” expressions like autistic person? Should we apply or avoid diagnostic labels?

These questions often stir up strong feelings. Some people feel that patient implies being passive and subordinate. Others think consumer is too transactional, as if seeking help is like buying a new refrigerator.

Advocates of person-first language argue people shouldn’t be defined by their conditions. Proponents of identity-first language counter that these conditions can be sources of meaning and belonging.

Avid users of diagnostic terms see them as useful descriptors. Critics worry that diagnostic labels can box people in and misrepresent their problems as pathologies.

Underlying many of these disagreements are concerns about stigma and the medicalisation of suffering. Ideally the language we use should not cast people who experience distress as defective or shameful, or frame everyday problems of living in psychiatric terms.

Our new research, published in the journal PLOS Mental Health, examines how the language of distress has evolved over nearly 80 years. Here’s what we found.

Generic terms for the class of conditions

Generic terms – such as mental illness, psychiatric disorder or psychological problem – have largely escaped attention in debates about the language of mental ill health. These terms refer to mental health conditions as a class.

Many terms are currently in circulation, each an adjective followed by a noun. Popular adjectives include mental, mental health, psychiatric and psychological, and common nouns include condition, disease, disorder, disturbance, illness, and problem. Readers can encounter every combination.

These terms and their components differ in their connotations. Disease and illness sound the most medical, whereas condition, disturbance and problem need not relate to health. Mental implies a direct contrast with physical, whereas psychiatric implicates a medical specialty.

Mental health problem, a recently emerging term, is arguably the least pathologising. It implies that something is to be solved rather than treated, makes no direct reference to medicine, and carries the positive connotations of health rather than the negative connotation of illness or disease.

Arguably, this development points to what cognitive scientist Steven Pinker calls the “euphemism treadmill”, the tendency for language to evolve new terms to escape (at least temporarily) the offensive connotations of those they replace.

English linguist Hazel Price argues that mental health has increasingly come to replace mental illness to avoid the stigma associated with that term.

How has usage changed over time?

In the PLOS Mental Health paper, we examine historical changes in the popularity of 24 generic terms: every combination of the nouns and adjectives listed above.

We explore the frequency with which each term appears from 1940 to 2019 in two massive text data sets representing books in English and diverse American English sources, respectively. The findings are very similar in both data sets.

The figure presents the relative popularity of the top ten terms in the larger data set (Google Books). The 14 least popular terms are combined into the remainder.

Several trends appear. Mental has consistently been the most popular adjective component of the generic terms. Mental health has become more popular in recent years but is still rarely used.

Among nouns, disease has become less widely used while illness has become dominant. Although disorder is the official term in psychiatric classifications, it has not been broadly adopted in public discourse.

Since 1940, mental illness has clearly become the preferred generic term. Although an assortment of alternatives have emerged, it has steadily risen in popularity.

Does it matter?

Our study documents striking shifts in the popularity of generic terms, but do these changes matter? The answer may be: not much.

One study found people think mental disorder, mental illness and mental health problem refer to essentially identical phenomena.

Other studies indicate that labelling a person as having a mental disease, mental disorder, mental health problem, mental illness or psychological disorder makes no difference to people’s attitudes toward them.

We don’t yet know if there are other implications of using different generic terms, but the evidence to date suggests they are minimal.

Is ‘distress’ any better?

Recently, some writers have promoted distress as an alternative to traditional generic terms. It lacks medical connotations and emphasises the person’s subjective experience rather than whether they fit an official diagnosis.

Distress appears 65 times in the 2022 Victorian Mental Health and Wellbeing Act, usually in the expression “mental illness or psychological distress”. By implication, distress is a broad concept akin to but not synonymous with mental ill health.

But is distress destigmatising, as it was intended to be? Apparently not. According to one study, it was more stigmatising than its alternatives. The term may turn us away from other people’s suffering by amplifying it.

So what should we call it?

Mental illness is easily the most popular generic term and its popularity has been rising. Research indicates different terms have little or no effect on stigma and some terms intended to destigmatise may backfire.

We suggest that mental illness should be embraced and the proliferation of alternative terms such as mental health problem, which breed confusion, should end.

Critics might argue mental illness imposes a medical frame. Philosopher Zsuzsanna Chappell disagrees. Illness, she argues, refers to subjective first-person experience, not to an objective, third-person pathology, like disease.

Properly understood, the concept of illness centres the individual and their connections. “When I identify my suffering as illness-like,” Chappell writes, “I wish to lay claim to a caring interpersonal relationship.”

As generic terms go, mental illness is a healthy option.

Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, The University of Melbourne and Naomi Baes, Researcher – Social Psychology/ Natural Language Processing, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.