small harnesses

[Amelanchier]

Quite a few claims you make there Linda.

 

On what basis?

 

Are you saying the TM will cause problems, or any belt fitted to the pelvis?

 

We disagree that a harness properly designed to the pelvis will cause women flexibility issues.

 

After all, the TreeFlex pelvic fit concept was designed by a woman (and mother) with 28 yrs experience as a remedial fitness professional, carefully considering male and female form. The flexibility adapts to the female pelvis well, though there is quite a range of female hip morphology.

 

What science makes you claim that a pelvic belt will cause child bearing issues? The TM and TFX are very different in how they fit the pelvis. There are child bearing issues that need to be considered by female climbers, but not in this respect.

 

The short torso of the woman makes for more serious lower back issues and higher compressional forces to internal organs, if an above waist design is used.

 

But hey, what do I know, right? I am but a man!

 

Laz.

 

I note you use the word "...will..." and Linda uses the word "...may..."

 

There's no arguement here.

[Laz]

Hmm....well spotted Tony.

 

I'll check some facts and give Linda a chance to do the same before responding.

[Thea]

Hello! I'm also female and sort of slender (34" hips) and have just started climbing. The only harness I've used is a Tree Magic but it fits well and is very comfy.

 

Scrap that, have since climbed in a TreeMotion and found it way more comfy!

[Dom]

I've used the Buckingham Master II harness for the past 3 years, and would love to try another one. I'm sure it shouldn't pinch the crown jewels as much as it does, so I need to look for a safer, less painful option..

[Linda]

Quite a few claims you make there Linda.

 

On what basis?

 

Are you saying the TM will cause problems, or any belt fitted to the pelvis?

 

We disagree that a harness properly designed to the pelvis will cause women flexibility issues.

 

After all, the TreeFlex pelvic fit concept was designed by a woman (and mother) with 28 yrs experience as a remedial fitness professional, carefully considering male and female form. The flexibility adapts to the female pelvis well, though there is quite a range of female hip morphology.

 

What science makes you claim that a pelvic belt will cause child bearing issues? The TM and TFX are very different in how they fit the pelvis. There are child bearing issues that need to be considered by female climbers, but not in this respect.

 

The short torso of the woman makes for more serious lower back issues and higher compressional forces to internal organs, if an above waist design is used.

 

But hey, what do I know, right? I am but a man!

 

 

Hey Laz

 

No point in getting all defensive. As Tony pointed out I use the term "may", but if you want facts then you might wanna check out research done on pelvices of American female drag racing drivers for example, as well as French marine parachuting women, to name but a few. Not the same industry but same principle, where there is weight imposed on top of or on the sides of the pelvis.

 

I also sense a bit of defensiveness to my remark that it might be tricky to ask men for advise in some cases, which is a shame. I do not wish to exclude anybody or create a schism between males and females, this is not on my agenda ever, but in this particular case/thread I am saying: take advise from ladies first, because of anatomical differences. Would you ask someone with a square shaped head for advise on a helmet for your round shaped head? Probably not. Would I personally ask a woman with very narrow hips about advise on harnesses? Not likely. That's just the way it goes, but I apologise if you took offense.

 

I am however not sad that I brought the issue up. I believe there are a lot of things many climbers do not know about their own anatomy, and as such are perhaps mistreating their bodies in ways that are not necessary for carrying out the job effectively and efficiently. If your TreeFlex harness is designed not to generally obstruct female pelvic flexibility then you might benefit from saying so (backing it up with scientific data abviously) in your ad material. You make a choice when you buy a certain harness, and the more information out there to form the basis of your decision, the better obviously. In the end, it's up to each and every one to make their own choices.

 

Cheers

[Laz]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Linda.

 

My motivations aren't based on 'offense'. Let me explain a little; I've been in this industry 21 years, in most departments, in most positions. Except expert witness, though I have advised expert witnesses.

 

In that time, whether the office or field, I have learned that one of the greatest causes of mistakes, injury, MSDs, RSIs, near misses and accidents in Arboriculture, is people acting under an assumption, that turned out to be incorrect, inefficient, unsafe or down right dangerous. Constant reminders that to assume makes an 'ASS' out of 'U' and 'ME' !

 

Some of these assumptions exist as a culture in some operations, and are very difficult to re-dress. Work positioning harnesses are a case in point for all work at height.

 

Assuming information from surviving the EXTREME forces applied from drag racing or parachuting, is in some way relevant to tree work positioning, is in my opinion mis-guided, producing yet more mis-information about risks that don't exist, and if they do, aren't practicably controllable. Though I'm sure it makes interesting reading none the less. It just shows that such forces must be avoided. And fortunately for responsible arborists, they easily are.

 

A work positioning or fall arrest system is not designed

to exceed a force greater than 6kN in Europe, or 8kN Canada. For good reasons, some of which are no doubt included in the research you mention. Which is why parachute research was used to help establish a safe limit of force for work at height.

 

Anyone who disrespects this limit and exposes themselves to high fall forces, will have a whole host of serious issues to contend with if they are lucky (some might say unlucky) enough to survive. Such that child bearing will be the least of their concerns.

 

Climbers that expose themselves to high fall forces without energy absorbers and free fall space are guilty of bad practice; the equipment they are using will not be designed to absorb such forces, and the body certainly isn't.

 

I know some of us have pretty tough skins, but at the end of the day, we're just soft squeezable bags of saline and calcium.

 

TreeFlex isn't sold as gender specific, because it isn't. It is flexible, sized and adjustable to adapt as much as possible to most human morphology within the realms of cost effectiveness. The only harnesses sold specifically for women, are based on designs for above waist use (which we don't recommend). And these are based on increased flex to adapt to the top of the hips, or usually just a more feminine colour. i.e. its a marketing exercise rather than scientific.

 

 

From our research, THE best place to site a work positioning harness (when shaped correctly!) is the pelvis - male, female or those that chose to switch.

 

 

You pay your money and take your choice.

[Sevsafe]

have you tried a tree magic?

 

the other harness im trying at the moment is the Heightec Bee http://www.sevsafe.co.uk/acatalog/Heightec_Arborists__Harnesses_and_accessories.html which is actually quite a comfy harness......i know the tree hopper seems popular with female climbers, i think this does adjust quite small.

Plug - we have got Summer Special Prices on Bee and Treehopper http://www.sevsafe.co.uk/acatalog/Heightec_Arborists__Harnesses_and_accessories.html also Treemme Boots, Arblite clothing etc

[Linda]

Laz,

 

As well as a climber, I am also a scientist and an academic, and I am well aware of the dangers of misinterpreting or misapplying research results. I would not mention research on this site that was not of relevance to a particular thread or our line of work. Central to these particular research projects were not momentary forces exceeding x KN, but pressure as a constant upon bones/ligaments/muscles/nerves. Furthermore, the articles discussed several applications, including the work positioning area, which led me to believe it was highly relevant to our industry. Misinformation you say, I say it’s important to look at issues from as many angles as possible. Why should I only look at information that is being fed to me through advertising where the male body is the norm? As we’ve agreed, in the end you are responsible for your own well-being and where you spend your money is your business.

 

I would be interested in reading the research behind TreeFlex, has it been peer reviewed and published anywhere? Or could you pm it to me please?

 

I agree with you Laz that assumptions are bad. The design of many so-called unisex harnesses available on the market today are based on the assumption that what works for men’s bodies will work just fine for women’s bodies as well. Now for the first time we are seeing some changes to that mentality, largely thanks to the rising number of women involved in tree climbing competitions, both on and off stage, giving women in the industry a higher profile, making them “worth investing in”. The TreeFlex is part of this “new era” as well, although I myself am not sure you can actually have a harness that fits both men and women.

[Laz]

Hello Linda

 

I've broken down my reply per paragraph below:

 

“Laz,

 

As well as a climber, I am also a scientist and an academic, and I am well aware of the dangers of misinterpreting or misapplying research results. I would not mention research on this site that was not of relevance to a particular thread or our line of work. Central to these particular research projects were not momentary forces exceeding x KN, but pressure as a constant upon bones/ligaments/muscles/nerves. Furthermore, the articles discussed several applications, including the work positioning area, which led me to believe it was highly relevant to our industry."

 

REPLY - There is nothing good about sitting in a harness all day in terms of human bio-mechanics. There will always be risks. Especially for certain types of morphology. It is a question of what are the greater risks, and what are the best ways to mitigate them. This is where our paradigm differs (it seems) to others – including your initial post on the topic.

 

"Misinformation you say, I say it’s important to look at issues from as many angles as possible. Why should I only look at information that is being fed to me through advertising where the male body is the norm? As we’ve agreed, in the end you are responsible for your own well-being and where you spend your money is your business."

 

REPLY - I don’t recall stating misinformation. Rather mis-application. And yes, different angles are very important - Conceptual thinking is our natural style.

 

"I would be interested in reading the research behind TreeFlex, has it been peer reviewed and published anywhere? Or could you pm it to me please?"

 

REPLY - That would be very convenient for you but very inconvenient for us - Our knowledge is proprietary information reserved for the sole purpose of our clients. But it is based on principles and practice that is well established and predominantly ignored. Some of the scientific research and reasoning was heavily relied on for work that resulted in a nobel peace prize. Unfortunately, it didn’t lend itself to the powers that be, in a way that they could profit from readily – the status quo remains. That is changing as MSDs become more recognised as the single biggest factor affecting health, safety and general well being (occupational or recreational).

 

"I agree with you Laz that assumptions are bad. The design of many so-called unisex harnesses available on the market today are based on the assumption that what works for men’s bodies will work just fine for women’s bodies as well."

 

REPLY - Assumptions are bad, but too often in practical tree work, they are all we have to rely on, because of lack of funding and an inability of the trade associations to represent our best interests and secure public support – why would anyone want to invest in practical arboricultural research? Until they do, we will constantly have to assume, or seek free advice, or take the lead from certain personalities whom claim to know best. Credible advice can’t come free, because credible advice takes time and costs to acquire and insure. It is financial suicide to then give it for free. Even these forums require subsidising by advertising. Unfortunately, if we can’t earn, we can’t exist in a helpful capacity – we become the charity from being too charitable. This is a separate issue, that helps explain why the arb industry is in crisis.

 

I think you credit the market too much that they think or assume at all about what works for any body. Nothing changed because it was a satisfactory market. There is great risk in stepping aside from the field that seems to be functioning perfectly well without having to invest in R&D.

 

"Now for the first time we are seeing some changes to that mentality, largely thanks to the rising number of women involved in tree climbing competitions, both on and off stage, giving women in the industry a higher profile, making them “worth investing in”.

 

REPLY - There is little change to the ‘mentality’. Yes, more women involved in arboriculture is a good thing. But the investment you speak of is purely marketing. It will apply itself to what women want. But that may have little to do with what women actually need. The tree climbing competitions are at least as far removed from real industry needs of women as they are for men.

 

"The TreeFlex is part of this “new era” as well, although I myself am not sure you can actually have a harness that fits both men and women.”

 

REPLY - In terms of effective arborist ergonomics, I’d say we pioneered the ‘new era’, rather than being a part of it. Emphasis on ‘effectiveness’. SRT is likely to become more popular, but already there is much evidence that it is being mis-applied in terms of effective physical ‘Use’.

 

Your conclusions on harnesses may mean nothing more than not being aware of the principles of human ‘use’. This is because (despite prize winning work) ‘effective use’ of the human system isn’t taught on medical curriculums. Very experienced remedial fitness professionals do understand use, and are now being chosen to apply cutting edge scientific research, ahead of Physiotherapists, because of it.

 

Good luck.

Laz

[scotspine1]

The tree climbing competitions are at least as far removed from real industry needs of women as they are for men.

 

Good point Laz. TCCs have given us many great innovations and techniques over the past few years, but they dont reflect real work situations.