L.I.F.T.

My good friend Colin Pistell over at the Fifth Ape blog put up a fantastic post about the notion of “crossed syndromes” in the body, and as a general metaphor for action.

To my knowledge, Vladimir Janda was the first researcher to recognize and categorize the crossed syndromes. If you Google Janda’s name, you’ll find at least a couple of good articles about the crossed syndromes. Click this link to download a great article about him and his method.

In addition, many practitioners have been releasing books recently detailing Janda’s methods. Check out Assessment and Treatment of Muscle Imbalance, The Janda Approach, and Back Pain, a Movement Problem, for a couple of approaches.

Colin mentions that we often get “crossed” through dysfunctional habitual patterns in our lives. Read Colin’s post for his take on this.

Below is my response to his insightful message:

Great post Colin!

Why not do less with less? We always want to do more, but where does that cultural prejudice come from, that “more is better?”

We also say “less is more,” but what does that mean?

Is the problem the interface, the technology, or the way in which it is used, and the way in which we allow ourselves to be used by it?

Culture (and I think, the human mind, generally) is insidious in the ability to create a myth that is then forgotten as a “created thing,” and accepted as “fact.”

What is significantly different about life now, from life 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10000 years ago?

Agriculture is different. But not better. Masanobu Fukuoka produced higher yields on his “organic” (beyond organic, actually) plot than the surrounding “industrial” fields. So we don’t need “new” technology there…and we don’t need to do “more” in agriculture.

You might say “longevity,” or “life-span.” I might agree, to a point. The “masses” are living longer, but lifespan itself hasn’t changed that much. Plato lived to the ripe old age of 80, in the 4th C BC. Many more examples of 80+ year lifespans in the “privileged classes” throughout ancient history.

You might say “connectedness.” But what has that connectedness changed? Fundamentally?

Knowledge? What has it given us, this knowledge? I like it, you know that. I think it’s fun. It’s my main hobby. But more and more, I turn within for knowledge…

We don’t really need to do “more” of anything…less, I think, is in order.

Maybe if we need more of something, it’s active sensitivity…sense-itivity. Sensing our environment, and ourselves as continuous with that environment (or vice versa). Using “sense” to grow things, or to act in our lives. “Making sense” in ways that are consistent with a happy life…

Your thoughts?

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?!

In the most recent Exuberant Animal blog post, head of EA, Frank Forencich, offers us a compelling question to ponder:

Is “exercise” part of the problem?

Frank says it is.

Exercise, he says, involves sets, reps, forced movements in unnatural or limited planes of motion, etc.

I think he’s right.

The “Workout” Dilemma

For many of us, even the term “workout” fades into the single word “work.”  It doesn’t sound like fun.  What’s supposed to be enjoyable about it?  Especially after you’ve already been working all week anyway?!  Who wants more work?!

A Rose by Any Other Name

It’s important to remember where gyms came from.  Original “gymnasiums” in Ancient Greece (the ones the European gymnasiums were modeled after, which are the gyms that ours were modeled after) consisted of an open sandy pit outside, and maybe a large, empty room, with some different apprati and weights to throw around.  But mostly, you’d just throw yourself (or maybe another person) around.

In the process, you’d learn some things.  Like how to deal with your own body.  Or how to deal with disorientation (tumbling).  Or how to deal with another person’s body (wrestling, boxing), or an external body of other sorts (shot put, weight, discus, javelin).

In the earlier part of the 20th Century, most American gyms still looked this way.  They were mostly empty space, with some weights around the perimeter, and maybe some uneven bars and gymnastic rings.  Maybe the gym would be totally outdoors.  Or at least have some outdoor space to play around in.

Your “workout” would consist of a combination of strength-skill movements.  Things that weren’t as simple as “just pick that up.”  You’d have to think a little bit about what you were about to do.

You might even have done some gymnastic-type things in there.

Further, there would be a community of like-minded folks in there watching you, coaching you, helping one another out, and competing with each other.  It wouldn’t be a line of hamsters on their wheels…excuse me, treadmills…

Oh The 80’s

In the 1980’s, the bodybuilding phenomenon really took off.  Large chain gyms like Gold’s, Bally’s, etc., took advantage of, and fueled the craze.

Group exercise classes became modeled after school classes – One Teacher, Many Students.

People grew competition-crazed.

Muscles bulged and glistened.

And the nation continued to get fatter.

The True Cost of Fitness

And in the melee, we all were swept up.

But what was it all about, in the end?  “Fitness?”  Fitness to do what?  For what  purpose?  To be able to do our jobs better?  No, most likely not.  To contribute to our communities?  No.  To hunt more effectively, or do something better?

No, just fitness.  To be fit.

Many of the aspects of our lives have turned into this in the past twenty years – to do something, simply to do it.

No value other than the doing of it.  Which is fine, but weird.

Those massive gyms, with all of their equipment, and the fees people pay to belong to those gyms…what is that about?

It isn’t about fitness.

What is your goal?  Why do you do it?  And wouldn’t you want it to be enjoyable?

Exercise, Fitness, and Movement

Frank insists that what people need is more movement.  I agree with him 100%.  But I also see that people must be coerced to move.  Calling it one thing or another doesn’t mean much.  Changing the way it looks, its external appearance, attracts attention.

All animals are attracted by the new, the novel.  They require what is familiar, but they are attracted to what is different.

So while I agree, that people need to move more, and that “exercise” may inhibit them, I think the means to get ourselves moving will come from different sources than from symantics.

We need more toys.

Toys That Change Worlds

Toys That Change Worlds is the subheader of one of my all-time favorite blogs (linked to the first few words in this sentence).  It’s not for everyone.  It’s very philosophical…just warning you.

But the point of that blog is that it’s possible to change your perception of reality, to change yourself, deeply and meaningfully, by playing with a new toy.

That’s why I’m not against things like Wii Fit, or the vibrating health saddle, kettlebells, bodyblades, or anything else.

In fact, I wish there were more of them!  And I wish that more groups of people would get together on a regular basis to play with all of those great toys.

Imagine if you had a block party, where everyone went around the block, into everyone’s house, and had to use the workout toys in that house for at least 5 minutes.  Then you all rotated.  Heck, what if you raced from house to house?

Sounds like fun!

And I think there’d be a lot of exercise equipment that would get dusted off, and have the hanging clothes taken off it.

Real Strength

In the end, true strength is total-person strength.  It is strength of will, strength of character, strength of judgment, strength of muscles, lungs, heart, mind, connections.  Real strength knows no bounds.  It spills over and out of the individual, into everything they do and touch.  It extends beyond them, into their friends, family and community.

Real strength also accepts no limits.  It seeks constantly to improve itself, to become more, to become stronger still.

Real strength is flexible.  It does not break, it bends, and then springs back into place.  It flows like water, wearing away even the hardest material over time.

To be truly strong, you must cultivate yourself.  You must accept who you are.  You must come to learn and embrace your greatest gift to humanity, and act to express that gift in every word, thought, and deed.

You must “workout.”  You must “exercise.”  You must “play.”  You must “stretch.”  You must do it all, and do it from the core of your being, for all you are worth, every day, tirelessly, until your time has run its course.

That is real strength.

People want to slash their workout times, by doing Tabata protocols, or taking an exercise pill.

“Short but tough workouts,” as outlined in the article linked above, may be good for getting some high-intensity work in – but they’re only as good as the quality of the effort you can put behind them.

Training regimens such as Crossfit, and other high-intensity protocols (like Tabata intervals), usually show the best results in people who are already very well-conditioned.

People who are poorly conditioned can’t maintain that workload.  What ends up happening is burnout, or worse – injury, caused by form deterioration during the session(s).

Quality and Quantity
Quality of movement is just as important as quantity – or intensity.  If you practice doing a particular exercise with bad form, guess what – you’ll get better at doing it improperly!

Form in weightlifting exercise is designed to spare your joints – to put the load on your bones and muscles, and take the load off of the hollow spaces in between.  Doing something with improper form will lead to injury.  If not now, then down the road – either due to repetitive (negative) strain, or due to bad movement-quality in the moment (for instance, not knowing how to decelerate with your knee in a good position = blown ACL).

You have to move, regularly, often, in many ways, with different (and preferably, incrementally increasing) intensities, in order to see long-lasting, healthy change.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Does that title sound convoluted?

Yes.  I think so.

A little redundant?

Indeed.

Why the redundancy, you ask?

To prove a point!

To me, it seems that we have taken a very simple thing – the health of the human being – and turned it into an incredibly convoluted, complex thing.

Here’s how simple health is:

Move often, in as many ways as possible.  Exert yourself, and then give yourself rest.  Rest as much as you need to, so that you can do as much as you can physically.  Eat till you’re full, and stick to food that’s been handled by human hands as little as necessary.

That’s it.

No reps.  No sets.  No diets.  No calorie-counting.  No restrictions.  No prescriptions.  Move vigorously in as many ways as possible, rest fully, eat unprocessed foods till you’re full – repeat.

Yes, it’s just that simple.

It’s how we evolved.  It’s why your great- or great-great grandparents could live for 80+ years eating bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.  They worked hard.  Physically.

If there was one thing I might add, one prescription, it would be this – Do all of those things with joyful companionship.

All of the rest is gravy, or icing, or lard – whatever you like best.  Rep it out.  Calculate sets till your hands fall off.  Track volume.  Measure joint range of motion and flexibility with fifty goniometers.  Active release-, ballistic-, and static-stretch the shit out of yourself.  But remember, that’s all just extra.  The only thing you really need to be happy and healthy, is the most basic, is free, is accessible now – move, eat, laugh, share – but above all – MOVE

I read Brian Grasso’s most recent post to the IYCA website, and realized something about my own approach to training – both of myself and of my clients.  Brian interviewed renowned strength and conditioning coach Juan Carlos Santana about the way JC trains kids at his facility.

Reading the interview, I realized that I approach all of my clients the way J.C. describes his approach with child-athletes.

Then I realized something else…that this focus we have on “adulthood,” and on “acting like an adult,” is another of the cultural mores I was talking about in my most recent post.  Similarly with the other items on my list, being “adult” ultimately costs a lot more than being a “child.”  Not in terms of energy – kids are infinitely more active in general than adults – but in terms of wear-and-tear on the system in general.  Think about the things we associate with adulthood (here’s a list from Wikipedia):

• Self-control – restraint, emotional control.
• Stability – stable personality, strength.
• Independence – ability to self-regulate.
• Seriousness – ability to deal with life in a serious manner.
• Responsibility – accountability, commitment and reliability.
• Method/Tact – ability to think ahead and plan for the future, patience.
• Endurance – ability and willingness to cope with difficulties that present themselves.
• Experience – breadth of mind, understanding.
• Objectivity – perspective and realism.
• Decision making capability – as all of the above correspond to making proper decisions.
• Priorities – Ability to determine what is necessary at that place and time.

While all of these are qualities that we associate with adulthood/maturity, and they’re all “necessary,” the degree or extent to which each quality is emphasized is a matter of debate.

In fact, I’d like to make a point, and then ask that you read that list again.  I’ve seen all of these qualities exhibited in children.  The degree, or ultimate direction of their action might be different than it would be for an adult,
but the qualities they exhibit are identical.

All human beings learn by doing, by interacting with their environment.  They learn that they can manipulate things through the repetition of movement “experiments.”  They learn responsibility when their actions come back to bite them.  They learn endurance when an old method no longer works in a new situation, and they have to continue to experiment to find the answer.

What we associate with “adulthood” in this country is a certain type of demonstration of the qualities in the list above.  And I think the one thing that characterizes this type – adulthood – most, is inflexibility or lack of experimentation.

Think about it.  What is the one quality present in children, that is not commonly present in most adults, that is also missing from that list?  Creativity.

The creative, flexible, experimental attitude of children is one of the things that allows them to learn and grow at such an astonishing rate.  There are other things, such as their lack of experience, that also help them to be more receptive than adults can be at times, but the open attitude that is associated with creativity and experimentation is central to learning.

These qualities are also associated with something that is deemed “childish” by our society – Play.  We look at adults who like to play (I mean, really play, not professional athletes…they aren’t playing, they’re working) as being simple or foolish.  And we only allow a few of the very top professional athletes to exhibit anything remotely resembling play.  Only those who have “paid their dues” or who exhibit such otherworldly performance as to be beyond reproof (or the ones we set up as our jesters, our fools, the ones whose antics are part of their work) have the right to play during their sport.  This is one of the reasons that I’m a member of organizations like the IYCA and Exuberant Animal – those organizations foster growth through play – one focused on children, the other on “adults.”

So, how do I train my clients?  The same way I would train anyone, of any age.  First, I assess their current state.  Where are they starting from?  What, based on my experience, do they need to do to create a solid foundation for future health and fitness?  Then, I ask them what their goals are, what their prior experience with exercise is, etc.  I’ll explain to them why we might be starting at a point that seems far removed from their ideal goal-state.  Then I’ll design their program.  But for just about everyone (just about), the programming is the same:

• Postural/structural focus
• General warmup
• Basic movement abilities/patterning
• More specific warmup
• Strength training
• More movement focus
• Stretching/cooldown, and more postural work.

It seems like a lot for one session at first glance, but the lines between posture-correction and warmup start to blur, as does the junction between specific warmup and strength training.  Also, movement focus occurs throughout the workout.  (I don’t like isolation exercises, unless there’s a very specific reason for them).  That list takes about 50 minutes to an hour from start to finish – which just happens to be the length of a training session – and provides a workout that supplies stimulus to every movement ability my clients possess.

One of the main things I try to do in every session is to create opportunities for creativity, problem-solving, and exploration.  I can do this subtly, by asking the client to perform a new movement, or one that they haven’t done since they were a child, or more directly, by having them choose the next exercise, or the way the exercise is performed (within the limits of safety, of course).

Basically, I just try to do what every good parent does – create a safe place where the individual’s capabilities can flourish.  And you know what, they always do.

I’m reading a ton during my graduate program, of course, and one of the classes I’m taking this semester is Motor Learning.  We’ve read two papers recently that have really opened my eyes to a new way of looking at motor skill learning and development.

The first article we read is one by Susan Higgins from Physical Therapy, back in 1991 (vol 71, pp 122-139).  In it, she explains motor skill as being “effectiveness in the use of movements to solve motor problems.”  This particular outlook, of movements as problem-solving tools, was brand new to me, and has changed everything in my outlook on skill and human movement.

I found her take on effectiveness extremely interesting as well.  Namely, that “the individual’s degree of effectiveness in the learning process (and thus in problem solving in general) will be limited by his or her ability for critical self-analysis and environmental analysis in light of problems encountered and by his or her ability to generate and control the solutions to these problems.”

It’s definitely something worth reading, if you’re at all interested in the subject matter.

The second piece that we read recently was the sixth chapter of a book called “Dexterity and Its Development.”  The contributing editors are Mark Latash, Michael Turvey, and Nikolai Bernshtein (or Bernstein).  Chapter six is called “How We Should Not Think About Motor Skill” and it is one of the most incredible things I’ve ever read.  I’m actually in the process of reading the rest of the book (what I can view of it) on Google Books (the thing itself is like $120).

First, Bernstein categorizes levels of movement and motor-ability in terms of the phylogenetic origins of the human animal.  That is, he ascribes reaction-based movements to the earlier parts of our brain (“reptilian brain”), etc.  This is similar to Paul MacLean’s “Triune Brain” theory.

It seems that Higgins took her cue from Bernstein.  He also sees movement as problem-solving.  However, the solution the body comes up with may not necessarily be the most structurally-proper solution.  From this point of view, dysfunction is the body solving a movement problem by getting around the structural/functional issues it’s encountering internally.  In a sense, dysfunction is the body solving internal motor problems, instead of external motor problems.

The chewiest bit from chapter six, for me, was the following quote, which I’ve parsed a little for the sake of brevity:

“A human starts learning a movement because he cannot do it…The essence and objective of exercise is to improve the movements, that is, to change them.  Therefore, correct exercise is in fact a repetition without repetition…during a correctly organized exercise, a student is repeating many times, not the means for solving a given motor problem, but the process of its solution, the changing and improving of the means.”

I think people often have a debate in their head about exercise.  They try to force themselves to do it (or get off the hook) by thinking about it.  They might think things like this:

“I worked out really hard yesterday, so I should take today off.”

“I’ll workout tomorrow, I’m just too busy today.”

“I’m not sure what to do, so I’ll just go for a walk after dinner.”

“I’m so out of shape, I’ll probably injure myself.  I should take it easy.”

etc.

I agree with none of these.  The person in the last instance is probably right, and probably needs to see a professional to begin any kind of exercise.  Number three at least is going to do something.  Numbers one and two have no validity whatsoever.

My agreement with the last one is still limited.  They could at least do what number three is doing.  But now I’m playing into your game, which isn’t my thing, and is definitely not the point of this post.

The point of the post is this – exercise matters because it is critical to life.  If you haven’t heard it before, hear it now – Life is movement.  If you’ve never thought about it before, think about it now – The less you move, the closer you are to death.

My request is simple – move more.  In any way that you can.  Explore your environment, explore your surroundings, explore your body’s capability for movement.  Combine movements in new ways.  Explore, play, have fun.  Move.  Move.  Move.  You don’t need shoes, you don’t need a gym, you don’t need anything.  You only need your body.  Get up and move.

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!

After reading Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers, I just can’t stop thinking about the impact of culture on our bodies, minds, and spirits. I’ve been wearing my Vibram FiveFingers just about all the time since I bought them. I’ve had a number of reactions/questions from people about them, that reveal a lot about our culture.

Most people look at them as a gag, or something silly. Very few ask “why would you wear those?” Most want to know what they’re made of, and, especially, if they’re “safe.” Well, there is a sole, though a little thin. So in San Francisco, where I live, they’re safer than actually going barefoot, but maybe not as “safe” as wearing a running shoe. I mean, a nail that might stop in the half-inch sole of a running shoe will most likely go through my foot if I step on it in the FiveFingers.

While the FiveFingers aren’t as “safe” in that way, they are much safer in another, much more important way. Wearing them forces me to be aware of my environment. This is a habit I’m happy to get into.

Aside from creating postural/muscular distortions, etc., shoes dull our minds to our environment. Ever hear someone who walks like an elephant? I’ve heard the lightest 95-pound women walk in high heels and sound like they must weigh 300 pounds. They’ve lost all sensitivity to the way they walk. It isn’t important to them. What is?  Creating an illusion of height, having a big booty, and legginess, that’s what.

Okay Josh, but what does this have to do with wine, culture, and exercise?

I was speaking with one of my esteemed clients this morning about a wine bar she visited recently. The owner serves all wines in the same type of glass. He says that that’s how they do it in the Old Country, where he’s from. They drink out of small cylindrical glasses…or canning jars.

For those of you who don’t know, many wine connoisseurs believe that it is critical to drink different types of wine from differently-shaped glasses. The different shapes of the glasses are supposed to provide more or less oxygen to the wine, and allow for a more or less intense smelling experience. Some even go so far as to claim that the shape of the glass helps to determine the exact place on your tongue that the wine will hit first, and so, what your tasting experience will be like.

While all of this is undoubtedly true, the question is – so what? I have a few more questions about this concept of wine-specific glasses. What level of wine-tasting experience/ability does one need in order to be able to tell the difference? Is it important for the “novice drinker?” What about the quality of the wine? I mean, is there a perfectly-shaped glass out there for my $5 bottle of Chianti?

What does all of this mean? I think it’s a symptom of our culture. The “scientific-mindedness” of our culture says that there is a perfect way to do everything. It tells us what our perfect cholesterol and blood pressure (and any other) levels are. It tells us exactly how many calories we need to eat per day. It tells us how much sleep we need at night. And then it shows up in a fitness magazine, and tell us the perfect workout to get our “summer body.” It does the same thing that shoes, or specially-shaped wine glasses do – it cuts off our awareness of ourselves, and funnels our experience into its own narrow structure.

There is another symptom of our culture that is related to this – that is our culture’s commercial/capitalist view of material goods, success, or work. A few years ago Nike’s campaign was “It Must Be The Shoes.” Sorry, Nike, shoes did not make Michael Jordan great. Countless hours of practice, skill, and a few lucky breaks did that. The glass you use won’t change the wine inside.

Yet we’re supposed to believe that the shoes do make a difference (both for Jordan and for our 95-lb debutante); that the wine glass is critical to our experience of the wine; that a pill will make you skinny; that you need to be a size 0 to shop here; that your breasts are too small; that your cholesterol is too high; that vegetables you cook in the microwave inside the plastic bag they came in are really good for you…

I guess, if it makes you happy, it’s not that bad. As long as you’re willing to suffer the lower back pain and dowager’s hump from your years of high-heel use. And as long as you don’t mind the stress you feel when the chardonnay you ordered comes in a glass designed for a beaujolais, or the miserable side effects of that diet pill or cholesterol drug, or the suffocating of the natural world in a sea of plastic.  Strange, they don’t show you those things in the adverts…

As I hint at above, the world of exercise is no different. There are a million certifications out there for personal trainers. They all have a different “scientific” approach to fitness. Most of those approaches are based on isolating certain principles of the human anatomy and physiology – muscle mass, explosiveness, maximal strength, leanness, cardiovascular efficiency, postural alignment, mobilization, etc. They’re based on programs and techniques used by athletes, or physical therapists, or body-workers. Very few, if any of them are based on you learning more about yourself and the world around you during your movement. Very few are truly aimed at you becoming a more complete individual. Most, instead, will do what the shoes and wine glass do – tell you where you’re wrong, and how to get in line.

I’m here to tell you that you can save all of that time, worry, and effort by doing less. Learn to enjoy the wine, regardless of the glass. Feel the grass under your feet again. Exercise without a plan or a goal, but instead, just to feel your body doing what it was made to do – to move. Find the joy in life, instead of in “the rules.”