The Best Exercise Includes a Dose of Nature

Posted on March 31, 2010 by Josh

The British Ecological Society’s blog posted about a recent research article titled “What Is The Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise For Improving Mental Health?”

The article is a meta-analysis (that is, it synthesizes research from many previous research studies about the topic), and sums up its results with the following statement:

“This study confirms that the environment provides an important health service.”

And I have only two questions…

1. REALLY?!!! and,

2. AND?!!!

First, this information is anything but new. Anyone who has every gone hiking, who has ever taken a vacation in the mountains, or in the woods, or who has ever played in a creek behind their house, knows firsthand the difference between “exercising” (moving) outdoors in a natural environment versus doing the same or similar activity indoors or in a “built” (human-made) environment.

I’m talking here, not only your own first-hand experience, but also about the incredible amount of scientific research that shows the benefits of moving in a natural environment. The paper quoted above used a lot of that research to make its own (redundant) point!

I’ve pointed out at least one piece of this literature in previous posts (here, here, and here). So…it’s not even new to this blog!!!

However, even with that knowledge, and even with the rapidly mounting evidence, and my (and others’) incessant blog postings on the subject, it continues to be an “issue.” That is, people continue to choose Wii, and to choose justifying their Wii time, to actually going out into the woods and taking a hike.

I want to say one thing before I finish this post up with a final point, and that is this -People seem to have a tendency to feel better once they talk about something. That is, they feel little compulsion to do anything about a problem once it’s been aired, once it’s out in the open. In fact, on a few occasions I’ve seen this behavior up close and in person. Let me give one example:

There was a family that I spent a lot of time with. Everyone was overweight in that family, and they were aware of it. In fact, they would almost always say things like “We’re all fat in this family.” Or “We need to lose weight.” Or “We need to throw out all of that junk food in the pantry, and just have a bowl of fruit out for snacks.”

One time, I actually offered to help with the clearing of the pantry. I said “Ok, that’s a good idea! Let’s do that now!” Well, the younger children of the household weren’t home, and the adults decided that it would be too traumatic to just throw everything out all of a sudden. So we didn’t clear out the pantry.

There is a reason we are not connecting to nature. That we are not making this connection. That we don’t go out into the woods and take a hike. There is a reason you don’t do it. What is that reason?

My final point is this – The above question seems a good question for science to ask. Why isn’t science asking that question?

Here’s my answer(s) to that question:

1. It’s not the job of science to do anything about it. It’s the job of science to ask questions and get answers. But science is not a field of activisim. It is a field of questioning and answering. That’s all. Expecting action based on gathered knowledge is a bad habit (one which I’m trying to get rid of).

2. Science doesn’t want to ask a question that invalidates itself. I think part of the answer, of why we are not connecting to nature, in spite of overwhelming evidence that we should, has to do with the fact that our culture is largely based in a scientific approach to things. That is, nature and science (at least, the way we’re accustomed to doing science) are largely contradictory. So, science might find its own relativism, and find its own value being questioned, were it to ask “Why aren’t we connecting to nature.”

A couple of possible answers…what do you think?!

The Myth of “Production”

Posted on November 13, 2009 by Josh

There are a few myths our culture upholds that are fundamental, and damaging. One is the myth of “production.” That is, that “production” is the key to “success” (our cultural definition of success).

Where does the myth come from? Seems like a combination of sources. First, our Puritan heritage stressed work-as-suffering as a (religiously) necessary part of life. Self-denial, even in the Stoic sense, was a popular attitude in that culture.

I’d say that carries us through the 18th Century. In the 19th, the Industrial Revolution took hold. Then, that Puritan ethic drove a new idea of “work.” I think it was here that production took hold as king. Make more, faster…do more work in less time. More production. People realized that if they did this, they’d make more money. Money takes over.

In the 20th Century we had a bunch of wars. Production served us well (seemingly), because we could respond quickly to the demands of the world at that time (need tanks, planes, bombs? We can do it, fast!).

Now, in the 21st Century, we’re still trying to push this production. But there’s no direction to it. Any production is equally meaningful. What is that? Postmodernism?

Anyway, it has led to things like “clean” energy, “green” products, etc. Which, on the surface, seem like really good ideas. Many modern pundits for the environmental movement want to see more production in “green” areas.

The only problem with that, is that those methods all are still PRODUCTION, which BY DEFINITION takes energy and creates waste.

Creating the types of waste we create is antithetical to any truly “green” initiative.

What’s the solution? STOP producing so much. Stop consuming so much. And when you do produce/consume, stay close to nature…

Current thoughts on human fitness.

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Josh

Okay, here’s just a bunch of random stuff I’ve been wrestling with recently. Sorry for the haphazard collection, but I want to get this stuff down, and if anyone out there can help further my understanding, even better!

Somatic Therapies

I’ve been reading up on Laban, Bartenieff, Feldenkreis, Alexander, etc., techniques recently. I’ve also been speaking a lot with Charlie Reid about the Egoscue method. All of the strictly “movement” therapies (i.e., everything but Egoscue, which has other elements) are aimed at increasing the individual’s awareness of their own body in space and in motion. “Amazingly” fundamental problems in structure/function can correct themselves simply through awareness of dysfunction.

This isn’t so “amazing,” as I’ll point out in more detail in a second.

“Physical” Therapies

Egoscue is more of what I’d consider a “physical” therapy technique, since it diagnoses problems (typically based on posture or movement dysfunction) and then attempts to correct those problems through movement prescriptions. These prescriptions are aimed, like somatic therapies, at increasing the person’s awareness of their body (and dysfunction in their body), but also in doing this in a very specific way, addressing specific muscles and patterns of muscles throughout the body.

In fact, we could create a continuum of approaches to human function/dysfunction based on how specific the approach is in its corrective tactics. Along the lines of Egoscue, here, but a little more specific, would be Vojta’s reflex-locomotion techniques for improving function in cerebral palsy and similar disorders. Still more specific would be things like Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF). The most specific would be physical therapy techniques aimed at correcting or rehabilitating imbalances or injuries to specific muscle groups or joints.

However, that’s not to say that any of these are better or worse than the other. Instead, one approach might be better or worse for a particular person at a particular place and time. I think it’s crucial to recognize the similarities in these approaches, and their differences, and know when it’s important to use one versus the other.

Central Pattern Generators, the Body, and the Environment

Central Pattern Generators (CPG’s) are neural networks that create the rhythmical/cyclical motor patterns that determine/allow for things like gait. These circuits operate independently from the larger nervous system, or any type of brain-driven control. They are the basis of Vojta’s “reflex-locomotor patterns” mentioned above, and are the way that we are able to walk on two legs, and turn that walk into a jog or a sprint.

However, the generators don’t exist in isolation. Feedback from the body is needed. You can’t walk if your feet don’t know that you’re standing. You can’t run if you don’t know where your legs are in relation to your arms. This is “internal” awareness, or proprioception – your body’s awareness of itself in space. There is another, equally important factor that is often overlooked – that is, the body’s relation to its environment, let’s call it “external” awareness.

Research by Goma has shown that the body, and the generation/instantiation/sustenance of CPG’s relies just as much on the perceived environment as it does on internal factors. You can’t walk if you don’t know how fast the ground is moving beneath you. You can’t run if you don’t know where your feet are going to fall next.

Further, environmental awareness not only shapes the ability to do these things, but the environment itself shapes the things we’re capable of doing. This is true from a physiological perspective – if you grow up in an area short on uninterrupted, long distances, but long on heavy stones that have to be moved, you’ll likely become a miserable long-distance runner, but a very good heavy lifter. It is also true from an anthropomorphic perspective – the relative heights of the Amazonian native and the Masai warrior are no mistake – it’s helpful to be short in the jungle, and very tall in the desert.

The point here is that your body is designed by nature to move in certain ways. These CPG’s already inhabit your body as a function of your very anatomy/physiology itself! So it isn’t “miraculous” when a somatic therapy cures some ill (related or not). It’s simply that your body has been shown the path to normal function again, and is now able to deal with all of the other junk it needs to fight off.

Posture Makes Perfect

That’s the title of an excellent book by Dr. Victor Barker. In it, he outlines some of the things that happen when you have good or bad posture. What I’m most concerned with, is the effect that consistently poor movement has on posture. More than any other factor, limited motion contributes to poor posture. In fact, I would go further and guess that 90% of the “stretching” that is done out there would be completely unnecessary if full-range movement was carried out on a regular basis.

Postural correction is necessary. Proper posture is fundamental for proper movement – neither can exist without the other. However, I think that many of the ways that current methods attempt to correct poor posture and movement are faulty at best, and just a waste of time at worst.

Basic, fundamental movement

Fitness is all well and good, but of what use is it if you have no fundamental movement skill? I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about here. I worked at Gold’s Gym years ago, and there was a guy who worked out there who was a strongman and powerlifting competitor. The guy was incredible. He was currently only benching 450. He wanted his bench press to go up to 500 by the next meet. For those of you who don’t know, 500 pounds is an incredible bench press.

This man was a behemoth. He was easily 6’5″ and probably weighed around 300+ pounds. He looked like classical pictures of Paul Bunyan – big, barrel chested, thickly muscled, with a heavy beard and deep-set eyes.

He was also a heck of a nice guy. But that didn’t stop him from tearing all of the ligaments in his knee when his foot accidentally got stuck under the concrete stopping-block in the parking lot one night. This is not a joke.

For all of his strength, and his size, the man only practiced one thing all of the time – lifting heavy weights, in the sagittal plane (that is, straight ahead or directly up and down). He didn’t spend any time developing basic movement abilities.

Why have we lost the practice of these abilities in our gyms? Gyms these days (though the tide is slowly turning) more closely resemble factories than they do places to explore and develop optimal human movement. Look at a picture of any gym prior to 1970, and you’ll see something very interesting – LOTS OF OPEN SPACE.

Yes, there is a TON of open space. All of the weights either stack nicely against the wall, or in a closet somewhere. There are gymnastic rings hanging from the ceiling, and stall-bars along one wall.

What is that space for?!

Well, it reflects one of the central tenets of Asian philosophies, which is this – until you create space, Nature cannot express itself through you. You’ve heard it said in many ways, probably the most popular is the koan of the overflowing cup – how can the Master give you knowledge, when your cup is already overfull. Empty your mind to be able to accept the great learning.

The space in those gyms was used for tumbling and acrobatics. Things that are strangely relegated to their own, separate gyms these days. Remember how to do a somersault? Okay, go for it. You don’t need a gymnastics gym to do that.

Why has this disappeared, though? Funny enough, a large component of the feats of the early “strongman” – the predecessor of today’s bodybuilder – were exactly these “gymnastic” abilities (not to mention – WRESTLING). These guys had to do back-bridges with five people sitting on their chest. They did 1-arm handstands from the backs of chairs while holding dumbbells in the other hand.

This ethic, this part of physical culture, continued to “muscle beach” in Venice, CA, but then mysteriously vanished with the advent of Gold’s Gym and the bodybuilding craze.

I guess it was too complicated, and required too much practice. It wasn’t as easy as going into the gym and mindlessly blasting your muscles with rep after rep of the same movement pattern.

Or maybe it was too much fun. It didn’t satisfy the deeply-ingrained Puritan work-ethic that we thrive (and die) on in this country. Too much lolly-gagging. To many laughs when you had to somersault out of that 1-arm handstand.

Don’t get me wrong, I love bodybuilding. Arnold, after all, was one of my big idols as a kid. But so was Bruce Lee. I’m just sort of shocked at how little REAL MOVEMENT is a part of any modern workout routine. Instead, it’s mostly STATIONARY – go to this station, do 10 reps, go to this station, do 12, this station…

From now on, all of my clients are starting with somersaults.

And what about Nature?

The gymnasium/gym comparison relates back to the topic of environment, and it is worth noting another idea I’ve been dealing with recently regarding that topic, which is the effect of “natural” environments on human physiology. A paper by Tsunetsugu, et al., reveals the effects that simply “taking in” a natural woodland setting have on humans. I quote: “1) blood pressure and pulse rate were significantly lower, and 2) the power of the HF [high-frequency, the relaxed-state component] component of the HRV [heart-rate variability] tended to be higher and the LF/(LF+HF) [low-frequency] tended to be lower. Also, 3) salivary cortisol [the main "stress hormone" in your body] concentration was significantly lower in the forest area.”

If that’s true, what are the effects of EXERCISING in a more natural environment? Would those effects be heightened?! Would recovery be increased?! Would fatigue be diminished?!

But what about Nature? All of this talk of “greening” nowadays is really just a bunch of advertising. Nothing substantial is changing in the hearts and minds of people around the world. Their perception of nature and the natural world remains as it always has been – something distant, somehow separate from themselves.

I’ve already written a ton about the benefits of being barefoot, but let me outline them again here – reduced blood pressure, greater environmental awareness, improved proprioception and balance, improved movement ability and posture. But what about a more natural diet? Lower cholesterol, lower salt, lower CRP (i.e., lower inflammation levels, reduced risk of heart disease), reduced risk of diabetes, reduced instance of arthritis, etc., etc., etc.

Well, that’s a lot of words, and, that’s all for now. I’ll be chewing on all of this till we meet again. If you have any words or ideas, please share!