The biomechanical vs neuroeducational model

Next Level Neuro
News & Education

The Biomechanical vs Neuroeducational Model

If the traditional biomechanical model ever released a tell-all exposé about the history of how we teach and treat pain today, this article would be the backbone for Netflix, Episode 1.

We’re about to uncover:

✅ WHAT the biomechanical model is and how it shaped the way we train, treat, and rehab people today.
✅ HOW therapists, coaches, and doctors came to believe pain is a mechanical issue—and why they got it wrong.
✅ WHY this approach has failed millions of people stuck in chronic pain.
✅ WHAT you can expect from the future of pain science and performance training.

This article tells it all. We will take you on an exploration into history, science, and practical application so you can finally understand:

👉 Where we went wrong & how the biomechanical model came to be (hint - it's a shame it has taken this long to bring it up)
👉 Why neuroscience proves pain isn’t just a body problem—it’s a brain problem.
👉 How applied neurology is changing the game for pain relief, performance, and human movement.

Let’s get into it.

The Warm-Up - The Static Stretching Myth Exposed

Before I get right to the heart of this issue I want to bring up as a reference, the study that told all health professionals that static stretching before training reduces performance and increases injury risk and shows you how unchallenged studies dominate our health field.

This belief shaped warm-up routines, training protocols, and even professional sports conditioning programs. Like many fitness trends, this idea wasn’t built on an unshakable foundation—it was largely the result of one influential study.

Eventually, it was challenged by forward-thinking strength coaches like Michael Boyle, leading to a paradigm shift in sports performance training.

The Study That Changed Everything

The origins of the anti-static stretching movement can be traced back to a pivotal study published in 1998 by researchers at the University of Nevada.

The study suggested that static stretching before activity caused a decrease in power output in subsequent exercises—specifically, they found that athletes who performed static stretches before a strength test had reduced force production compared to those who didn’t stretch.

This study caught fire in the fitness and sports science communities. Soon, the conclusion was generalized: “Static stretching makes you weaker and more injury-prone before training.”

By the mid-2000s, it had become dogma—warm-ups should only include dynamic movements, foam rolling, or activation drills, while static stretching was relegated to post-workout cooldowns.

Michael Boyle and the Re-Evaluation

Boyle was among the first to openly challenge the anti-static stretching movement, arguing that the research had been misinterpreted and that the outright dismissal of static stretching was premature.

Boyle pointed out several flaws in the prevailing wisdom:

The research only looked at short-term effects on power output, not long-term injury prevention.
The decrease in performance was minimal and temporary, lasting only a few minutes.
Many elite-level athletes had used static stretching for decades with no noticeable decline in performance.
Avoiding static stretching entirely led to tightness and mobility issues in many athletes.

Boyle and others in the field began reintroducing static stretching into warm-ups, albeit in a more strategic way—holding stretches for shorter durations (under 30 seconds), pairing them with dynamic movements, and using them selectively based on the athlete’s needs.

The Shift in Consensus

By the 2010s, new research began to support Boyle’s stance. Meta-analyses showed that static stretching did not significantly increase injury risk, nor did it have a long-term negative effect on strength or power when used properly.

Instead, static stretching could be a valuable tool when integrated with a proper warm-up routine rather than being used excessively or in isolation.

A Lesson in Health Myths

Here is my point that we will show you is prevalent in the biomechanical vs neuroeducational model.

The rise and fall of the "never static stretch before training" belief is a prime example of how a single study, when misapplied, can lead to widespread fitness/health dogma.

And this is where I want to start with the biomechanical model of health vs. the neuroeducational model.

Like the static stretching myth above, the biomechanical approach to health and fitness has major flaws that go back to the 1600's.

Right here, right now we are going to challenge your thinking just like Mike Boyle did and change the health coaching model, starting today.

This highlights the importance of questioning absolutes in the field of therapy, strength, and conditioning. If you have yet to read our stance and science backing on foam rolling, click here.

Everything You’ve Been Taught About Pain Is Wrong

If you’re a coach, personal trainer, or therapist, you’ve been trained to see pain as a structural issue—a result of bad posture, muscle imbalances, joint dysfunction, or wear and tear.

You’ve been taught to assess posture, prescribe corrective exercises, and follow fixed rep schemes to restore function.

This is the biomechanical model of pain, and it has dominated health education for over a century.

But here’s the problem: It’s wrong.

It’s not completely wrong—biomechanics matter, but they aren’t the primary cause of most chronic pain.

If they were, we wouldn’t see:

❌ People with perfect postures suffering from debilitating pain.
❌ Athletes with torn ligaments walking pain-free.
❌ Chronic pain that persists long after an injury has healed.

Pain isn’t just about muscles, joints, and bones—it’s a brain-generated experience shaped by perception, memory, and threat.

👉 So how did we get here?
👉 Why did we start believing pain was a mechanical problem?
👉 How does applied neurology completely shift how we approach training, therapy, and rehabilitation?

Let’s understand where the science went wrong—and how we can put more attention on the brain first approach.

How the Biomechanical Model Hijacked Our Understanding of Pain

If you ask most doctors, trainers, or therapists where pain comes from, they’ll tell you:

“You have a muscle imbalance.”
“Your posture is off.”
“Your joint is wearing down.”
“You need to strengthen this muscle.”

In other words, they’re thinking below the neck—as if pain is a purely mechanical issue of muscles, joints, and bones.

This belief system, called the biomechanical model of pain, dominates health education today.

It’s why we still hear:

🔹 “Knee pain? Must be weak glutes.”
🔹 “Back pain? You need better posture.”
🔹 “Shoulder pain? Probably a rotator cuff tear.”

And to be fair, biomechanics do matter—but they are not the cause of most persistent pain.

If this is the belief system that has been installed, it makes sense that the perception of health professionals drives their actions, habits and behaviors centered around pain management.

So how did we get here?

As we told you above, nobody challenges what has become comfortable. No more.

The Mistake That Shaped Pain Science for Centuries

Descartes’ Error: Pain as a Simple Wiring Problem (1600s)

In the 1600s, René Descartes introduced the idea that pain was a simple wiring problem—like a rope being pulled to ring a bell in the brain.

This became the foundation for the biomechanical model:

Pain travels directly from the injury to the brain.
The bigger the injury, the worse the pain.
If we fix the tissue, we fix the pain.

This mistakenly turned pain into a purely physical issue.

The problem? It’s not true.

If pain were just about structural damage, we wouldn’t see:

Phantom limb pain (pain in a body part that doesn’t exist).
People with severe injuries report zero pain.
People with perfect imaging scans still experience chronic pain.

But because Descartes’ model was simple and easy to understand, it became deeply ingrained in Western medicine, rehab, and fitness.

-------> The biomechanical model ran with it—ignoring the brain’s role in pain.

The Origins of the Biomechanical Model

The biomechanical model emerged in the 1800s, when medicine became hyper-focused on anatomy, dissection, and structural differences.

Physicians began correlating visible abnormalities with pain, assuming:

👉 Pain must come from the structures themselves.

***

This was further reinforced by surgical advancements in the 20th century.

If a knee was in pain and looked damaged on an X-ray, removing or replacing the joint seemed to fix it.
If a disc was bulging on an MRI, it was assumed to be the source of back pain.

As we studied bones and muscles, we increasingly attributed pain to tissue damage and mechanical dysfunction.

***

But this assumption had a massive flaw.

It failed to explain why:

❌ Some people with severe injuries feel no pain at all.
❌ Others with no structural issues experience crippling chronic pain.
❌ Surgery often doesn’t resolve pain—many post-surgical patients still hurt.
❌ People with “bad posture” don’t necessarily have pain, while others with “perfect alignment” do.

The biomechanical model never accounted for the most important piece of the puzzle:

👉 The brain’s role in pain perception.

And this brings us to one of the biggest mistakes in pain science.

The Rise of Neuroscience - The Challenge to the Biomechanical Model

This is where the script flipped—scientists started realizing that pain wasn’t just a body problem, it was a brain problem.

The following three discoveries showed us that pain isn’t simply a message from injured tissue but a complex output from the nervous system, shaped by perception, past experiences, and threat levels.

What you will now understand and where the education is headed, is your brain is the governing center of your pain experience, mixing signals from your body with emotions, memories, and survival instincts.

Everything we thought we knew about training, rehab, and performance is going to change.

The Gate Control Theory of Pain (1965 – Melzack & Wall)

A groundbreaking discovery showed that pain is not just a direct signal from the body, but modulated by the spinal cord and brain.

✔️ Pain could be turned up or down by the nervous system.
✔️ The spinal cord acts as a “gate,” deciding which pain signals reach the brain.
✔️ Psychological factors influence whether pain is felt or ignored.

This was a major shift—but it wasn’t enough to fully challenge the biomechanical model.

The Neural Matrix Theory (1998 – Dr. Ronald Melzack)

Pain is not just a signal from the body—it is generated by a network of brain areas.

🔹 The somatosensory cortex processes body awareness.
🔹 The limbic system connects pain to emotion & memory.
🔹 The prefrontal cortex determines whether pain is a threat.

**Pain is an interconnected system—**not a simple signal from an injury.

2003 MRI Studies: Pain is a Brain Phenomenon

By 2003, MRI studies confirmed that pain involves multiple areas of the brain.

This meant:

✅ Pain can exist without injury.
✅ Chronic pain is driven by threat perception, not just tissue damage.
✅ The nervous system dictates how we move, recover, and experience pain.

The traditional model was officially outdated.

Applied Neurology: The Future of Pain & Performance Training

The rise of applied neurology is changing everything.

Instead of relying on outdated, one-size-fits-all biomechanical approaches, we now have a new model that puts the nervous system first.

3 Key Components of Applied Neurology

1️⃣ Neuro Assessments: Test how the nervous system responds before, during, and after movement.
2️⃣ Targeted Neuro Drills: Use vision, vestibular, and movement drills to improve function.
3️⃣ Continuous Reassessment: Adapt each session based on real-time feedback.

The Future of Pain Science is Here

The biomechanical model was a stepping stone—but it’s time to move forward just like the entire industry moved forward with static stretching. But this is bigger than static stretching.

This is a generational shift in how we look at health.

✅ Pain is a whole-brain experience, not just a tissue issue.
✅ Applied neurology gives us a new path—one based on neuroscience, individual nervous system function, and real-time assessment.

👉 If you’re still treating pain like a mechanical issue, you’re missing the bigger picture.
👉 If you’re still giving clients pre-set reps and sets, you’re treating them like machines, not humans.
👉 If you’re ready to evolve, it’s time to embrace applied neurology.

The future of training, therapy, and rehabilitation is here

Are you ready to lead the way for this generation into the next?

If you want more information on our Fundamentals Of Neurology or our Mentorship Program, please click the links.

Fundamentals Of Applied Neurology

Mentorship Program

NEURONEWS HOMEPAGE

Next Level Neuro
News & Education