The equilibrium-point hypothesis is still doing fine

Within the present paper we provide the arguments that contradict Gottlieb's conclusions regarding the theoretical implications of kinematics of movements performed with unexpectedly changed inertial loads. First, the load associated changes in movement velocity presented by Gottlieb may be caused by apparent methodological differences, when compared to our earlier results. Moreover, the present data can be interpreted by the equilibrium-point hypothesis as well as by Gottlieb's hypothesis. Second, Gottlieb remains silent on findings related to the movement time and symmetry ratio that contradict predictions based on either torque control or Gottlieb's hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that the data obtained on rapid movements performed with unexpected changes in inertial load support equilibrium-point hypothesis, rather that any of the torque control based models.