Movement is Problem Solving

Posted on February 26, 2009 by Josh

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.”

Why Exercise Matters

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Josh

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.

Current thoughts on human fitness.

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Josh

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

Somatic Therapies

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

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

“Physical” Therapies

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

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

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

Central Pattern Generators, the Body, and the Environment

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

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

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

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

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

Posture Makes Perfect

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

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

Basic, fundamental movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is that space for?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what about Nature?

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

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

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

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

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

Shoes, Wine, Culture – and Exercise

Posted on February 13, 2009 by Josh

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.”

The Powerful Secret of Tai Chi

Posted on February 5, 2009 by Josh

What is the “secret” to the health benefits that people derive from regular Tai Chi practice?

Is it the sequence of movements, the types of movements, the duration of the movement, or some secret Chinese acupressure technique?!

The “secret” of the effectiveness of Tai Chi for improving health is hidden in the above question. Hopefully, you already know what I’m going to say.

Yes, that’s right – IT’S “MOVEMENT!”

I guarantee you that if you perform ANY movement that is as varied as what’s involved in Tai Chi, with the same level of intention, you’ll experience the same benefits. That’s why Yoga practitioners miraculously show the same types of benefit.

DO SOMETHING! Get moving.

What cost – “youth”

Posted on December 9, 2008 by Josh

A friend forwarded this article to me. Unfortunately, nothing in it surprises me.

It chronicles a litany of methods being used to obtain “youthfulness” and “vigor” in the aging US population.

Three quotes that stand out for me are:

1. “My friends say, ‘Oh, Ed’s on steroids,’”…”I’m not. I’m on hormone therapy,” he says of a regimen that costs him more than $1,000 a month. [among the drugs he takes are human growth hormone, testosterone, and an adrenal hormone known as DHEA].

2. For a group known as the Calorie Restriction Society, youthfulness isn’t found in hormones. It’s reducing food intake to, in some cases, near-starvation levels.

3. This search for eternal youthfulness certainly isn’t new. “In 1,500 B.C. people were ingesting tiger gonads to rejuvenate them,” says Dr. Gene Cohen, a George Washington University expert on aging.

Before I go further, let’s talk about a few specifics…

What’s the difference, you might ask, between a steroid and a hormone? As far as I know, a steroid is a specific class of compound, with a specific chemical structure. Hormones are chemical messengers in the body, that typically serve as signals to communicate between cells. All of the human sex hormones (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone (and cortisol)) happen to be steroidal in structure. So our friend above is only partly correct. He is taking steroids.

Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is not steroidal in structure, and has similar effects to steroids, but with low to no (currently known) negative effects if taken in proper doses.

I don’t want to be misleading. Taking the course of “hormone therapy” that’s reviewed here, while you’re under the close monitoring of a physician, may not be harmful at all. If the dosages are closely correlated to your age, body weight, and other physical signifiers, and a doctor is checking you out every few months, you’ll probably experience drastic changes in your body (to the tune of $1000/mo., at least).

Not only that, but hormone therapy has saved the lives of many people. Steroids and HGH can be similarly life-saving in people with HIV/AIDS to help prevent the muscle-wasting associated with that disease.

This post isn’t about the legality issues surrounding steroids (for a great film about that issue, go rent Bigger Faster Stronger). Nor is it about the moral or ethical issues surrounding steroid use in sports.

This post is about a question, which brings me to my final quotes from the article. The interviewees cite the same things as their reasons for taking these drugs. Namely: to “feel better, more energetic, clear-minded” from one, and to have ‘”lots of energy” and feel[sic] “sharp,” from another.

But what else is involved with these therapies? It’s funny, but you can take as much HGH, testosterone, or whatever, but if you don’t exercise, nothing very good will happen to you.

Movement rules above all else. And, in fact, movement can provide all of the benefits sought by the youth-seekers, though maybe not with the extreme muscle-growth.

There’s something you can do that’s a lot cheaper than $1000/mo., that will keep you feeling better, energetic, clear-minded, and sharp. In fact, it can be totally free.

It’s called exercise.

If you want to know where to start and you don’t know how, drop me a line. I’ll be happy to help. If you want something with some structure, and feel compelled to spend some money, go take some Tai Chi (or Taiji) classes.

Is it scientific proof you need? Master Lu Zijian is 93 in this video. He is practicing an art called Baguazhang, similar to Tai Chi.

Jack Lalanne pulled a string of 70 boats behind him with 70 people in them as he swam 1.5 miles. Roland Fortin wanted to fight Jack when he was 91, and Jack was 92!

The law is called inertia – a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Rest more, keep resting…

The fountain of youth is within you, dear hearts. It’s movement. Start moving. Move as much as you can and in as many ways as you can, till you get a little tired (but not a lot), every day, and a funny thing will happen – you’ll be full of energy – able to move more and more, for longer and longer, your mind will become clear and sharp, and life will be better.