Tag Archives: movement

DNS – The Foundations of Human Movement – Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

Ever have the experience that you’re peering into the very foundation of existence?

Come one, you can admit it to me. Even if you were totally “altered,” it counts. Ever experience that?

Ever have that feeling that you were seeing something so simple, yet so immense, it was completely within your grasp and yet completely beyond your understanding?

If not, stop reading now and go get that experience.

If so, you can relate to what I experienced today at the DNS Sport seminar here in Seattle.

It’s funny, because I think as is true with most “profound” things, many people who attend a DNS course may feel only confusion, or disgust, or the feeling that the thing they’re seeing is so obvious that it’s meaningless…that they’ve already thought that or they already do that.

All great feelings, that need to be checked immediately as potential reflex responses to things that challenge your (perhaps limited) worldview.

This is going to be a three-part series on DNS, because I’ve got some ground to cover.

Part I will cover the history and background assumptions of DNS, and also go into its applications and use.

Part II will cover the process that I learned at the seminar with reflections on similar movement patterns in other disciplines.

Part III will be a “philosophical” discussion about movement in the light of DNS and will include some observations of my own around assumptions we make regarding movement in our culture.

So what the heck is DNS, and why should you care?

DNS stands for Dynamic Muscular Stabilization. It’s a therapeutic method developed by Czech physiotherpist Pavel Kolar and his colleagues at the Prague School of Rehabilitation.

On this page you can see/watch a ton of information on DNS.

DNS is based on what’s called Developmental Kinesiology (DK) – the study of the development of movement from conception through maturation of movement. Most DK work focuses on the organization of movement from the first day of life up through about one year of age, when walking begins.

DK rests on a few key developmental landmarks.

All of them are based on ontogenetic (species-wide) developmental patterns that are reflexive – they happen automatically according to a relatively fixed maturational schedule, and are triggered by external stimuli (like any “genetic” factor). The main ones are all based on human upright posture. Specifically, the following elements of movement:

Spinal straightening
Extension
Abduction and external rotation

The first organizational level is Sagittal Stabilization. This represents the child’s ability to organize movement around the midline, linked to optical orientation. The child learns to maintain an erect spine and develops control over limb abduction and external rotation.

The other is “phasic movement” which comprises stepping forward and stabilization/support.

The homolateral or ipsa-lateral movement (movement of the same-side limbs) aspect of stepping-forward and support happens first. When a baby rolls onto its side, the lower limbs become support limbs. The rest of the body moves over the supporting joints (i.e., the proximal joint facets move over the fixed distal/limb joints, or the fixed segment). This is usually called “closed-chain” movement – the distal end is fixed, and the body ends up moving on that fixed base.

The contralateral (opposite-side movement) pattern happens second developmentally, with opposite-side limbs acting as supports. In this type of movement, the distal portion is usually the free-end, and the distal part of the joint is moving on the fixed/stable proximal segment. This is usually referred to as “open-chain” movement, since the distal end is “open,” able to move whatever resistance it’s encountering. The body is the fixed base of support.

Rotation and creeping are the main stereotypes that cover postural development. They are the main patterns that organize the development of all skeletal muscle.

So what?

First off, what DNS is saying here is that all human movement develops from the basis of these reflex patterns. And because of those patterns and the way muscles attach to bone, all human movement evolves in a very particular way.

Think you might want to know about that?

Also, since these are developmental reflexes (embedded in the fabric of the nervous system), they can be reawakened at any time in healthy neurology. That is, if you have some sort of movement dysfunction, you can potentially “cure” that problem by returning to these fundamental patterns.

Why?

Because the patterns create optimal movement in a baby. That is, these are the patterns create healthy movement in a healthy human animal. Get out of these patterns, and things start going bad.

Breathing
Breathing and healthy diaphragmatic action is a key to postural stabilization. The diaphragm is not just the bellows of your lungs, but it’s also the most central “organizationally powerful” stabilizer of the spine.

Ideally, the abdomen is a solid cylinder. When the diaphragm pushes down on the abdominal contents, it creates what’s know as “Intra-Abdominal Pressure” (IAP). IAP creates reflex-co-contraction throughout the muscles of the abdominal cavity – all of the “normal” abdominal muscles, as well as the pelvic floor and even the gluteals!

DNS extends well beyond breathing, but always utilizes the central principles of IAP and reflex locomotor patterning, using positioning and manual contact to elicit response.

Joint Centration and Movement Organization
To be optimally functioning, the joint (cavity and head) must be centered. The forces on either side must be balanced.

Why does any of this matter?
This is how the body is organized. This is “functional” movement – that is, movement that is ideal in the organization of the body (and external object) with regard to gravity. “Mechanics” are optimal. Stress and shear are minimal (or “optimal”). Dysfunction is negligible.

This is how to move well.

It should be obvious that getting these patterns in good working order is literally the baseline state for good healthy movement!

So how do you do it?! Stay tuned!

Real Strength and Optimal Function demands Somatic Training

Posted on by
Reply

What is “somatic training?” Essentially it is body-awareness. Soma is the Greek word for body.

I’ve talked about it in previous posts, most recently in my review of Josephine Key’s book “Back Pain, a Movement Problem.”

Key is a physical therapist (or “physiotherapist,” as they’re known outside the USA) who has studied several somatic disciplines and integrated them into her physical therapy practice.

Why?

Key’s realization, and the realization that the best “body-professionals” are coming to, is that our scientific understanding of how the body moves and “works” is useful to identify (and sometimes address) particular features of the body, but that the health of the body is always based upon strong, aware, exertive, and “functional” movement.

Professor Shirley Sahrmann summed this up well in her 2002 book “Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes.” She outlined the history of physical therapy, which began with a focus on dysfunctions of the neuromusculoskeletal system through “cadaveric” anatomy – focusing on individual muscles and innervations, and the restoration of muscle function through manual methods. The field shifted in the late 1950′s, when the polio vaccine significantly reduced the incidence of polio in the “developed” world. Research and practice shifted to a focus on the central nervous system’s role in dysfunction, particularly as related to cerebral palsy. Joint dysfunction became the predominant area of study and treatment in the 1980′s, as physical therapists began to realize release techniques applied to joints could resolve nervous system disorders. In the 1990′s focus shifted again, this time to “movement” – largely due to an increase in the number of patients presenting with problems related to dysfunctional movement.

Sahrmann’s book takes a traditional approach to treating movement impairment and dysfunction, asking the practitioner to test individual muscles and perform many single-muscle-specific or joint-specific exercises to retrain movement patterns. Key’s work, by comparison, approaches the body in a more holistic fashion, focusing on patterns of movement (though Key does use standard physical therapy techniques – individual muscle and joint testing and treatment).

Embedded within these approaches is THE BODY. Which presents something of a “problem” to me, and is one of the reasons for this post. The body in-itself (as an object – something you have) is not the approach of somatics. The body-as-central-point-of-focus (as something you do) is what somatics is about.

See the difference? Simply “working the body” might get some results, but doesn’t increase your awareness of why you got those results. So you’re helpless the next time you get into trouble.

It’s the old – “Give a man to fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.”

 

Leaders in the Field – Two Great Papers and Thinkers
The first is a paper called “Vladimir Janda: Tribute to a Master of Rehabilitation,” by Craig Morris, Margaret Bullock, and John Basmajian.

Janda was a leader in the 1960′s transition Sahrmann mentions, with his focus on neuromotor control and stability, which was significantly different from the “muscles and mobility” approach before him.

Janda’s major contributions are his “crossed syndromes” – patterns of muscular dysfunction that occur in a predictable manner.

For those with no access to the journal article above, check out the equally-great article “The Janda Approach” by Phil Page and Clare Frank. To avoid lawsuits from Lippincott and Williams, I’ll post Page and Frank’s fantastic representation of all of Janda’s crossed syndromes:

Janda’s lesson was that it is necessary to understand and utilize rules and techniques from each of “the three interdependent neuro-musculo-articular systems.”

(NOTE: Janda’s approach is covered in-depth in the book “Assessment and Treatment of Muscle Imbalance: The Janda Approach“).

The paper “Lessons for the Future” by Karel Lewit outlines the history of
rehabilitative medicine, roughly along the same lines as Sahrmann’s work. But Lewit goes one further, and addresses the body as a system (something the Czech school has been famous for).

Lewit makes the point that the dysfunctional motor patterns that Vladimir Janda discovered (and that Sahrmann and Keys are treating in their own ways) can be understood through basic rules about how the body functions.

First, the long-muscles of the body cross the joints in opposing innervations that, if “pulling” equally, result in “good posture.” But beyond that “global” (“superficial”) system there is a “local” (“deep”) system, of smaller muscles that cross only one joint at a time, providing local stability to the joints.

Lewit lists the clinical signs of weakness of the local/deep system (pp. 134-136):

  1. Weakness of the lateral part of the abdominal wall (weakness of the TrA and diastasis (separation) of the rectus abdominis).
  2. Faulty respiration evidenced by a lifting of the thorax rather than its expansion during breathing.
  3. Sagging of the longitudinal arch of the foot and poor toe flexion.
  4. Protruding or “winging” shoulder blades (lower trap and serratus ant. underactivity).
  5. Overactivity of the short extensors of the neck and the sternocleidomastoid muscle.

These dysfunctions are addressed readily by (pp. 136-138):

  1. Placing the hands on the border of the waist and exerting pressure outward against them (feeling the TrA activate in a ring around the abdomen, squeezing its contents laterally out against the hands).
  2. Performing #1 while inhaling and keeping the thorax and clavicles from rising, allowing the thorax to expand with the breath (and the diaphragm to contract downward).
  3. Leaning forward in standing (with “good posture,” of course), just to the point that the toes flex automatically (keeping the heels on the ground). Repeat slowly 10 times. AND, feeling the outer margin of the foot during walking.
  4. Practicing drawing the lower point (ramus) of the scapula in toward the spine (against resistance – a therapist’s thumb, for instance). AND, in the four-point position on hands and knees, keeping the scapulae abducted (spread apart) keeping pressure on the base of the thumb (hands flat).
  5. Sitting with “good posture,” and pressing quickly with both hands flat onto the top of the head, straight down the vertebral column.
  6. Releasing the psoas, quadratus lumborum and erector spinae. How do you do that? Like this:

OR, if you’re a self-starter and have a creative streak – you can do it YOURSELF!!!

Also see Deric Stockton’s foam roll sequence:

Lewit goes on to discuss the importance of releasing muscular trigger points, and healing muscular and fascial scar tissue and lesions.

SO WHAT?!

The point here is not to give you a bunch of videos to watch or words to read that you may not be able to relate to.

The point is to say that there are very simple actions that lead to large changes in the way the body behaves.  These are the things Lewit is pointing toward.

He is not saying that all the therapeutic techniques ever invented are not needed, but he is saying that there are often much simpler solutions that rely on the innate behavior of the body.

The LIFT Approach
Somatics attempts to teach the participant how to feel optimal function and movement in their own body.

But somatics alone isn’t good either. All the touchy-feely stuff in the world gets you nowhere. Yes, I can feel xyz, but what exactly am I feeling?

A merging of both approaches becomes necessary.

Lewit’s approach is something like this.  Extremely effective at solving seemingly unsolvable (from the perspective of cadaveric anatomy) problems in the body.  Lewit may not instruct his clients about neuromusculoskeletal anatomy, but he is in at least some way, simply by having them place their own hands on their bodies.  He must provide a reference, which is an anchor back to “experiencing your own experience” (so to speak).

I think a merging of every approach becomes necessary. That’s what LIFT is all about.

But how can I do that? How can I possibly merge every approach?

It’s really simple, actually, and it’s the way that all body-practitioners follow already, whether they’ve consciously realized it or not. Here it is:

  • Start with a DESIRE to learn, feel, and express more and more deeply and broadly.  It’s the mantra the Barefoot Sensei taught me – “TEACH ME.”  To follow this principle requires deepening sensitivity and awareness.
  • Study the PRINCIPLES of the body (from every perspective – physiology, anthropology, physics, history, etc.).
  • Observe the principles in PRACTICES and tease them out – by doing them.  Mere observation and laboratory analysis won’t help you here.
  • SHARE what you’ve learned with others, and hear/observe their feedback.

Sensitivity and awareness are requisite throughout, and those qualities should deepen as time goes by on this path.

Muscles and Meridians – Phillip Beach

Posted on by
Reply

I recently finished reading Phillip Beach’s book “Muscles and Meridians: The Manipulation of Shape.” This book is a game-changer.

Beach describes the development of the human neuromotor system from embryological (and phylogenetic/evolutionary-developmental) perspectives. He uses the elements of development from those perspectives to create his model of human movement, using what he calls the “Contractile Fields” (CFs). From there Beach describes the nature of the contractile fields, and the relationship between embryological/evolutionary development of the contractile fields and the discovery of the meridians of Chinese medicine.

There is way too much to cover in a simple blog post. If you’re interested in this subject at all, buy the book! It is worth every cent.

But let’s go through some key points.

Beach ties a lot of his model to the Wolffian ring – a ring that appears on the embryo between 24 and 36 days of development. The ring represents an organizational line, around which further development of the embryo will be based. It separates front and back (at that stage, these structures later come to “involute” or invaginate), and connects primary functional structures of the organism such as the eyes, nose, nipples, limb buds, and genital tip. The ring helps to define the manipulation of shape that will create the organism.

One of Beach’s biggest statements in the book, and the reason for his development of the CF model, is that traditional understandings of human neuromuscular anatomy aren’t representative of how the body actually behaves in life, and therefore aren’t very useful in clinical practice. This should come as no surprise to anyone in the health fields. To explain this more directly – most, if not all, of our knowledge and education about the body is based on models derived from cadavers – dead bodies. The naming and separation of muscles and nerves is useful from a labeling perspective, and allows us to have a common language about the body, but it does not represent a living body. Applying “dead body” language to “live body” movement creates a lot of problems.

One of the problems, that Beach touches on only briefly, is apparent in the distinction between “intrinsic” (or “tonic”) musculature, and “extrinsic” (“phasic”) musculature. Physical therapists like Vladimir Janda refer to the postural/antigravity muscles (that are usually deeper to our skeletal system) as becoming underactive with improper use. The larger outer-lying muscles become hyperactive. While this is true to some degree, it is a cadeveric approach to musculature as well.

Josephine Key attacks this problem in her book “Back Pain: A Movement Problem,” explaining that back pain is related to faulty movement patterns, which involve both tonic and phasic muscles. But she is also still stuck in the traditional approach, concluding that treatment must be the art of knowing about those muscles, and instructing people in proper movement patterning.

Beach, on the other hand, offers an entirely new concept of how to organize thinking about the activation of muscles in movement. This is his Contractile Field concept. There are 7 CF’s in Beach’s model – the Lateral, Dorso/Ventral, Helical, Limb, Radial, Chiralic, and Fluid fields. Each field is described by a “border” that almost directly reflects the meridians of traditional Chinese medical theory. Beach goes a step further, and includes a sensory organ (embedded) in each field.

The fields cover diverse muscles that are both shallow and deep (and that traverse shallow-to-deep layers, or vice versa), and that function in synchrony, or in cascades during normal movement.

Beach hypothesizes that the Chinese meridian theory was developed based on their recognition that the body responds to noxious stimuli in these patterns of shape-change. After enough experimentation and manual handling, Chinese medical doctors were able to discover the “borders” that defined functioning in the different fields. Traditional Chinese Medical techniques, then, are attempts to change the shape of the organism – to shift it back to a healthy shape.

Beach offers some great points on dysfunctional movement. His biggest point in this subject is that chair-sitting (or, lack of floor-/ground-sitting) is one of the biggest causes of modern dis-ease and dysfunction. He offers a few key “archetypal postures” and what he calls “erectorcises” to help to combat this problem. He also comments on the shoe, and the sensory deprivation our culture experiences as a result of shoes. The feedback loop between the foot and the lower back cut off, the lower back begins to experience dysfunctional motor patterns, and eventually pain. Beach recommends walking barefoot on stones to help to remedy this problem, and get some “sense” back into the feet and lower nervous system.

This book offers a model of human movement that ties a lot of things together and answers a lot of questions for me. It has provided a doorway into a new way of looking at the body, and I’ll be studying it for a long time to come. Highly recommended!

Book Review – Back Pain: A Movement Problem, by Josephine Key

Posted on by
Reply

Back Pain: A Movement Problem, by Josephine Key, is one of the most extensive books I’ve ever read on a single subject. Key covers not just the muscular and anatomical structures, but also the biomechanical considerations, neurological issues, and somatic/whole-body (movement) aspect of back pain.

It took me about two months to get through this thing. It is intense! But I have gained an appreciation for the dynamics of back pain!

Key is especially enlightening with regard to back pain as a movement issue. Along with things like obesity, lower back pain was not especially prevalent in non-civilized cultures.

She lists several factors of function, which are important in any physical activity endeavor:

Culture – the individual/self-culture, social/peer/family culture, and larger societal culture. These show up in back pain in numerous ways.

  • Individual-culture is your self-talk, the way you think about yourself, your emotions and emotional coping strategies.  Emotions create chemical profiles within the body that in turn trigger muscular contraction patterns.  This is how we can create a stereotype image of someone who is “depressed” – with slumped shoulders, sagging head, etc.
  • Peer and family cultures have a huge influence on our behavior – both from “peer pressure” as well as through reinforcement of our self-talk.
  • In terms of modern culture, modern cultural trends have many women (and some men) wearing “skinny jeans” which force them to put their lumbar spine into flexion and risk injury!  Chair-sitting is similarly problematic.

Movement – Movement behavior and practice is usually informed by culture.  The ways we move will create health or dis-ease in our neuromusculoskeletal systems.

Personal Motor-History – Even before our culture or our movement “history” is our developmental motor-learning path.  Some babies move more than others.  Some have restrictions in muscles or joints that aren’t noticed.  Some experience trauma.  Beyond that, some children receive recovery or interventions for their movement-maladies, and some do not.  All of our subsequent movements are based on the very first movements we make (even in the womb).  As we grow, we build upon this base of knowledge, reinforcing good and bad movement habits.

From Key’s perspective, control of the pelvis is the most critical factor in treating back pain.  This involves at least an intuitive or “felt” sense of the muscles of the pelvis (there are a lot of them), as well as a gradually progressed training of the movement of the pelvis in all directions, and stability of the pelvis in movement.

For back pain sufferers, a primary concept is that of pivoting on the balls of the femurs in the hip sockets, rather than “bending” from the spine.

Key covers aspects of movement by the somaticists, much to my delight, combining “clinical” and “scientific” knowledge with the expertise of movement experts like Feldenkrais, Alexander, Bartenieff, and Bainbridge-Cohen.  These folks emphasized quality of movement as much as range-of-movement or mobility of joints.

On page 266 Key quotes Bartenieff’s six features of movement quality:

  1. Differentiated vs. less differentiated use of the limbs and their segments, head/trunk, and constellations of trunk and limb.
  2. Dominance of asymmetrical vs symmetrical use of limbs.  Asymmetric use stimulates greater mobility and develops selectivity and range in pattern.
  3. Use of areas of reach space (personal kinesphere) around the body before full uprightness vs. limited use of reach space.
  4. Flexible vs fixed use of verticality
  5. Development of verticality and full use of kinesphere into a territorial space (locomotor space) vs limited use.  This becomes visible in the sitting stage.
  6. Organization of activity patterns into phrases – ordering, combining, alternating, and elaborating – vs short monotone flexion and extension actions.

Key covers modern fitness trends like Pilates and Yoga, that are often led by teachers either unfamiliar with the muscle and biomechanics of movement (and dysfunction) – and are therefore lacking good instructional metaphors, visualizations, and hands-on techniques – and who also are often teaching more people than they could adequately coach in proper movement.  She quotes Bartenieff’s statement that there is in Yoga a “preoccupation with pushing the body into the shape apparently desired by the teacher and a tendency to passivity particularly in initiating action and flow” (pg. 272).

The fitness industry is not exempt by a long shot, with it’s focus on goal-attainment at any cost (no pain no gain); an emphasis on strength (rather than control or quality movement); the use of “stupid” movements (movements without variation, and movements done lying supine or sitting in machines); dominantly bilateral work rather than reaching, single-limb, or movement involving weight-shift control; over-development of the limb muscles; poorly designed and executed stretching protocols; and a focus on the hyper-development of the major (SGMS – systemic global muscle system) muscles at the expense of the postural/”minor” muscle system.

She quotes McGill’s approach to exercise, partly based on Russian philosophies of exercise and training – “it emphasizes muscle endurance, motor control perfection, and the maintenance of sufficient spine stability in all epected tasks.  While strength is not a targeted goal, strength gains do result.”  This approach encompasses “awareness; all-around development; systematic increments in challenge; pacing; repetition; visualization; specialization; individualization and structure” (pg. 274).

Key’s model is based on O’Sullivan’s.  She identifies three main areas  of dysfunction:

  1. Pathological underlying processes creating pain syndromes.
  2. Psychological/social factors with somatic presentations.
  3. Maladaptive movement patterns, with two classes – a. Movement impairments, and b. Control impairments.  (pg. 218)

Her treatment protocol is too long to list here (considerations go from page 352-354!).  My take is that it can be “boiled down” into the following components:

  1. Awareness – of breathing, of proper movement patterning and mechanics (of the pelvis, spine, and shoulder girdle), and of pain generating factors (including emotional states).
  2. Activation – learning how to activate “intrinsic”/tonic muscles (what Key calls the SLMS – systemic local muscle system) – these are the “anti-gravity” muscles of the body that help to support our frame – as well as “extrinsic/phasic muscles.  Key also discusses “active feet” – spreading the toes, connecting through the “4-corners” of the foot, and raising up through the transverse arch.  I would add “active hands” – a similar process.
  3. Movement – learning how to move from/with the SLMS muscles and structural cues, rather than from improper or poor patterns.
  4. Control – learning how to control those movements in-depth, and in many situations (unilaterally, bilaterally, on unstable surfaces, with or without loading, etc.), and
  5. Integration – through practice, integrating good movement into daily living and movement.

She mentions bridging patterns, the “ischial swing” bending movement (using the balls of the femurs to bend from, rather than the lumbar (or thoracic) spine), active feet, and unilateral leg-movements (“birddog”) as movements in which to focus on the above.

At the end of the book, Key mentions that treatment needs to become “the client’s problem.”  People need to take ownership of their bodies and problems in order to change.  On page 270 she cites a study by Larsson and Nordholm, who found that “lower education, physical inactivity, and sick leave for musculoskeletal disorders increased the odds of attributing responsibility externally.”  A study quoted on page 276 found that “indifferent emotions toward life” were correlated with back pain patients.  Another point exists, though, which is that it is ultimately the patient who continues (or stops) the behavior creating the vicious cycle of pain and movement patterning creating that pain.

This is not to say that the practitioner or therapist is off the hook.  Only that the patient must take responsibility for understanding and practicing the treatment of their pain.  Key mentions that this involves the patient seeing the way they posture.  As mentioned above, posture and emotional state are interrelated and at some level inseparable.  Adopting a “depressed” posture (“posing” as if you’re depressed) will trigger the activation of motorneurons that will in turn go to the brain and signal a depressed state.  As a coach I know says to his players – “fake it till you make it.”  You must at times adopt new postures in order to give the body a chance to accommodate to them.

Therapist/coach/fitness-instructor/teacher and patient/athlete/client/student must work together.  If either side of the equation becomes complacent, both ultimately suffer.

That said, I highly recommend this book.  Even though it is difficult reading, it conveys an enormous amount of information regarding the proper function and use of the spine.  It is also, in my opinion, a step in the right direction, combining practical therapeutic knowledge and experiences from a clinical practice with scientific research and somatic knowledges about the way the body works!

Crossing Wires, and “Progress” – The Fifth Ape Blog

Posted on by
Reply

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 Best Exercise Includes a Dose of Nature

Posted on by
Reply

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?!

Exercise – A dirty word?

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Nice gym.

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.

Please adopt a cardio machine...they're lonely

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?

Another beauty...

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.

Worlds that change 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.

Sure, strong. Sure, flexible. Sure...

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.

No Free Lunch

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Where we have gotten to

Posted on by
Reply

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

The Kid in You

Posted on by
Reply

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.