Mythmaking

After a great conversation with one of the people I play with at the foot-camp today, I have quite a bit to say about control.  I’ll try to make it as cohesive (and brief) as possible.

First, many (if not all) of our beliefs and ideas about control are myths.

The word “myth” means “story.”  Human beings have used stories to relate things to one another, probably as long as we’ve existed as a species.

As a story, a myth is always a subjective storytelling.  It is always perspectival – it is always based on the individual opinion or worldview of the person telling the myth.

The source of our myths, or what we accept as a “valid” mythology, has changed in different eras.  However, there has almost always been an individual, or “type” of individual (an office, of sorts) whose stories we agree to believe unconditionally.

This office is different depending on our culture.  It is culturally dictated.  In some cultures, we only believe the myths our shaman tells us.  In others, we only believe the myths told us by our politicians.  In others, those told to us by warlords.  In others, it is the scientist who has myth-telling authority.  It depends on the culture you make yourself a part of.

You can probably have more than one official myth-teller in your culture, but the more you have, the more confusing things become.  When you are part of a political-myth culture, but you have developed strong religious-myth beliefs, you have to find a religious-politician, or a political-religious leader, whose myths you can believe in.

Also, at times, we create our own myths about ourselves, and listen to no one else – “I am not good enough,” or, “I am better than everyone else,” or, “My nose is too big,” etc.  Those are stories we tell ourselves.

All of the stories we tell ourselves, or choose to believe, serve a purpose.  There may not be a single purpose underlying all myths – but on the other hand, there might.  At least in the sense that all of the myths that we choose to believe, as individuals, define who we are or who we can be as individuals.  Not only that, but they also usually define who we are or who we can be within the culture(s) to which we claim membership.

As I mentioned in my last post, much of the dietary information available today is mythology.  It is storytelling, done, sometimes by scientists, but more often by “pop-culture” writers.  Neither telling is the whole truth.  As I mentioned above, any storyteller can only tell the story as they see it…which usually also means that they tell it as they want it to befor them.

Coming up with solutions to perceived problems usually grants power in most cultures.  One problem might be – “Where do I go when I die?”  The religious storyteller solves this problem with their myth, and they are rewarded accordingly.

Another might be – “Why am I fat?”  Here, the scientists or writer myth-maker tries to solve the problem.  They offer their solution, in expectation of appropriate reward for their effort.

But the story is incomplete.  It is a splinter from the log.  It is the reflection off of a facet of the jewel that is the problem.

In the most recent Exuberant Animal blog post, Frank Forencich cites a report from Robert Sapolsky, noted stress researcher:

“In Scientific American, December 2005, Sapolsky writes:
‘individuals are more likely to activate a stress response and are more at risk for a stress sensitive disease if they…

feel as if they have minimal control

feel as if they have no predictive information

have few outlets for their frustration

interpret the stressor as evidence of worsening circumstances

lack social support’”

Indeed, this is much of what our mythmaking seeks to combat.  It is actually the most important “risk factor” – unhappiness, stress, despair.

All disease is stressful.  Stress, undue stress that we cannot deal with, is a disease state.  For Sapolsky, stress is a primary concern.  It’s what he studies.  It’s his area of myth officialdom.

While all of these perspectives are important, valuable, and enriching, we need to make it a regular habit to step back from our mythologies and look at the gem itself.  Even though we can’t take it in (because, ultimately, it is All That Is), we can move back and play with the interrelationships between the myths we’ve chosen to believe in.

In this sense, taken together, all of the risk factors we hear about – dietary cholesterol, fats, refined or processed (re-pro) products (for instance, re-pro products like high fructose corn syrup, or re-pro products like car exhaust), stress (of any sort that we cannot resolve – emotional, psychological, physical, environmental), lack of movement, excesses and deficiencies of any sort – are equally to blame, and play an equal role in mortality.

The degree to which we can mitigate those risk factors is the degree to which we can live a healthy human life.  That life will go through developmental stages, cycles of growth and degeneration, of vitality and illness.  That process includes birth and death, creation and dissolution.  Depending upon how many of those risk factors that we have to deal with, over what duration and in what quantity, we’ll live, on average, 75-100 years.

This hasn’t really changed that much since the beginning of the human species.  In Ancient Greece, for instance, Aristotle lived to be 62.  He died in 322 BC.  That was 2300 years ago.  Sophocles, the playwright, lived to be 90.  That was in 400 BC.  Plato was about 76 when he died, in 348 BC.  Cicero was 63, in 43 BC.  Most of the “upper class” of Ancient Rome lived to be in their mid sixties or beyond – if they weren’t killed before then (cultural/environmental risk factors).

While the global averages for lifespan have increased in the past two centuries, thanks to the advent of available medicine and hygiene, the human lifespan has remained relatively unchanged.  If we live in an area low in risk factors, we live a good while.  The greater the risk factors, the lower our lifespan.

Most important is this – Understand that you choose the myths you participate and believe in.  Then change the ones that aren’t conducive to your health, happiness and longevity.

Find an environment that’s not just “not-stressful,” but that actually makes you feel exuberant!  Find a culture that supports your exuberance, and take part in it as often as possible.  Understand your myths, and get rid of the ones that are harmful.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Current thoughts on human fitness.

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!

Lacking Motivation? No Wonder

I just wrote this response to an entry on the Define Fitness weblog, and thought it was worthwhile to continue the conversation on my own page. Here it is:

As for this topic, it’s one I’ve been grappling with for at least a couple of years now. However, I don’t think the real answer is related to any of the things on the list. I learned those things as “obstacles” in my old Gold’s Gym days – Gold’s taught us that those were the real reasons people didn’t work out.
Having given it some thought, I now believe that it’s something more personal than those things. Something that a person couldn’t click a check-box next to, even if you could figure out how to word it. It’s something so personal they might not even understand the situation if it was explained in detail.
In short, I think it’s a result of our civilization.

Convenience, and everything it brings, kills the desire in the human soul to test itself. The ability to get whatever you want, whenever you want it, takes the drive out of the animal. We don’t have to fight to survive. We don’t have to work hard to enjoy the fruits of our labor. And one law that stands the test of time in nature is the law of least resistance. If we don’t have to, we won’t.

Of course, then, there are the exceptions…who feel compelled within their souls to move, to lift heavy things to push the envelope. If you could bottle their motivation, you’d pass Bill Gates in seconds.

A friend of mine texted me a few weeks ago. He was watching an international weightlifting competition, and he asked “Why is it always the Eastern Bloc up for Gold in these contests, never the USA?” I wrote back “Because they have to.”

Until it’s necessary, people won’t do it. And even then, many will still find any way possible to get around it. Physical activity. Sounds crazy, but I think it’s true.