due to the suggested "active ingredient" of the exercises given. I think it pulls the rug out a bit further from under the feet of the subgroup argument because in terms of specific effects there seem to be no funky britches hiding in the sea of boring beige. About Neil As well as writing for Body in Mind , Neil O'Connell is a researcher in the Centre for Research in Rehabilitation, Brunel University, West London, UK. He divides his time between research and training new physiotherapists and previously worked extensively as a musculoskeletal physiotherapist. He also tweets! @NeilOConnell He is currently fighting his way through a PhD investigating chronic low back pain and cortically directed treatment approaches. He is particularly interested in low back pain, pain generally and the rigorous testing of treatments. Link to Neil's published research here . Downloadable PDFs here . All blog posts should be attributed to their author, not to BodyInMind. That is, BodyInMind wants authors to say what they really think, not what they think BodyInMind thinks they should think. Think about that! Comments Out of interest which subgrouping strategies are you referring to? My perception of most up to date thinking on subgroupings was that they were designed to help us analyse movement and use movement behaviour as a way of changing beliefs. I think the argument applies to most subgrouping strategies. If there is a subgroup of folk in there who respond much more strongly, be they defined by structural diagnosis or