Yes, it’s been quite a while! Good to be back. I’m planning on getting back to my old level of activity here in the blogosphere, starting, immediately.
This post is about the Summer School at the School of Exercise and Sport Science that I attended last week. It was held at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. It was fantastic!
The school started (for me) with a 17-hour day of travel, that took me across several time zones, and resulted in my arriving in Copenhagen Sunday the 22nd. Two days after I left!!!
The first day was marked by torrential downpours, which I think are relatively normal in Copenhagen. I made it to a restaurant for some lunch – a salmon club sandwich! – and a large Carlsberg beer.
I was staying at the DGI-Byen Hostel, on Hans Christian Andersen Ave. It was a great hostel, and my three roommates were hilarious – two from Taiwan, and one from Spain.
Only one of my roommates was around in the afternoon, so he and I decided to head out to try to find the University in time for the check-in. After a little negotiating of bus stops, and talking to a couple of the incredibly helpful bus drivers, we managed to find the right bus, and get to the school. That night we had a short orientation, and then a nice dinner at the University.
Each day consisted of two presentations by experts in the field (sport sociology) with group discussions of those afterward, lunch, two student presentations (mostly PhD theses, but some masters-level work, like mine), a brief coffee break, a workshop by one of the experts, and then a short break before dinner during which you could do whatever you want, or meet with one of the experts for one-on-one supervision and discussion.
We had talks, and the opportunity to meet with (and to talk informally with) Gertrud Pfister, Laila Ottesen, Annette Hofmann, Reinhard Stelter, Anne-Marie Elbe, Jim Denison, Fabien Ohl, Pirkko Markula, Holly Thorpe, and Lone Thing. All incredibly knowledgeable experts in the field!
The discussions by the experts, and the work of the students, was all amazing. It was such an incredible experience to meet 29 other students from all over the world who are passionate and excited about their work in sport sociology. Our conversations were enlightening, to say the least!
I’m really grateful to have had the opportunity to attend such a great event, and to have met so many wonderful people. If you’re interested in attending next year, I highly encourage you to try! If you want any information about it, let me know, and I’ll be happy to help as much as I can!
First, I want to preface this post by saying that I am currently in the master’s degree program in kinesiology at San Francisco State University, with a concentration in “physical activity: social-scientific perspectives.”
I also want to point out that, even being a student, I’ve only been a student of this particular topic since I started the program. My undergraduate degree is in Classical Greek and Roman History. I’ve studied “sociology” very generally. Most of my learning is just beginning. So this blog is a question, not a statement. If it sounds like a statement, it’s because I’m bad at making discussions…I’m working on it! As a question, as a discussion, I’m asking you please to contribute your thoughts and ideas to this post.
My questions were originally these – what is “culture,” and how does it affect participation in physical activity…and, can we effect/affect it (either culture or physical activity)?
“Culture” could be loosely defined as the behaviors and beliefs of a certain group of people, as evidenced through shared values. Or, as shared values of a certain group of people, as evidenced through their behaviors and beliefs.
“Culture” is different from “society.” “Society” is the set of relationships between people, within a group of people. Things like social standing, class, etc., are what constitute “society.”
If we accept those definitions, we have also to accept that the study of social science is not the study of culture. They’re different. Most studies of culture fall under the banner of “cultural anthropology.”
In the learning and reading I’ve done so far with regard to physical activity, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the social-science aspect of this equation – the emphasis is on the relationships between people within the group, and how those dynamics foster or prevent physical activity. For instance, why certain socioeconomic classes, or certain ethnic groups, participate more or less in physical activity than others.
The Built Environment
Things like the “built environment” (the man-made environment) also come into play in social-scientific studies. Largely, I think, because the built environment can be very clearly related to social constructs like economic status, or class. A great number of researchers specialize in the concept of the built environment, and its effect on physical activity.
But I think that something lies much deeper than the built (or any) environment.
Now, I don’t have a lot of research to back me up on this. I’ll work on finding that. But it seems to me that people find a way to participate in physical activity (or not) regardless of their environment.
In Dan Everett’s book “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes,” he mentions the physical activity levels of the Piraha tribes as being relatively low, but says that they’re the strongest people he’s ever met. Dr. Everett describes an incident in which one Piraha man takes his bundle of wood (to be used to build a new hut) in addition to the one he is already carrying…each bundle weighing roughly 50-80 pounds (if memory serves…I don’t have the book handy).
I’ve read many accounts of indigenous peoples’ physical activity levels being relatively low (“working” 4 hours a day, perhaps, – and at that, not every day – and resting the rest). Granted, their “work” is entirely physical, but it seems like something else is happening here.
In those cultures, the natural environment provides a place for physical activity. But activity levels can be similar in Amish societies, that do not rely on “modern” technology. The Amish environment is significantly different, however. Does the “built environment” matter?
I feel like the “built environment” approach to increasing physical activity is really an approach coming from a “social control” viewpoint. It seems to me to posit that free-will does not exist. That people will make choices based on what they see around them, rather than what they feel inside of them.
The playground for little kids, where all of the moms go in the morning when I’m hosting play-camp in the enormous open (baseball) field (and trees) right next to it, is one example of this.
While the playground has provided a place for socialization for the children and mothers, and does make it “easier” to “watch” the kids (not sure how much watching actually goes on), it is precisely this that I have issue with. The idea is not that the children can’t get exercise in the large open field, playing freely (and probably supervised just as much, or a little less…which might be beneficial anyway). The idea of the playground is that there is some risk in being in the open. Perhaps.
The final example I’d like to give of why I think built environment methods of changing physical activity participation are misguided is that of physical activity taking place in areas where the environment is actually hostile to physical activity.
In one instance of this, I can remember playing ball often in parking lots or streets. And have seen countless pictures of children in Manhattan playing stick-ball in narrow streets or alleys.
In my day, the kids who would go on to create or inspire the creation of the X-Games would go skate and ride bikes in shopping malls and parking lots. Places typically not considered conducive to physical activity.
It was here! Springfield Mall, VA
An even more modern example of this is found in Parkour runners, who specifically look for environments hostile to physical activity in which to “trace” – to create an art through their running, jumping, and tumbling.
The Role of Technology
I think another social-scientific perspective, that merges with a cultural perspective, has to do with the role of technology in limiting (or encouraging) physical activity.
I have to admit that I take issue with the modern use of the word “technology.” A technology is simply a method for getting something done. It may involve the use of tools, or not, but it is systematic and repeated, and gives certain, predictable results (for this reason, Louis Liebenberg called tracking “the origin of science”).
Most folks nowadays use the word “technology” to mean “computer/electronic technology.” That’s a very limited use of the word, and I think it is misleading. Starting a fire with two sticks is also a technology. Some call those “primitive technologies.” Tracking animals is another technology, involving a systematic method for observation and understanding of what you are observing. Narrowing down further still, meditation/yoga/somatics/qi gong/self-awareness are also a “technology.” Each has their own method for acquiring deeper awareness of what is occurring within the body…basically an internal “tracking.”
People rant and rave about the issue of the effect of modern technology on physical activity levels. There are two rants I’d like to address – the industrial (technology) rant, and the entertainment (technology) rant.
The industrial rant goes something like this – industrialization (first, now “computerization”) led to the loss of physical activity in normal labor, which led to people not moving as much, which has led to decreased physical activity (generally) and diseases associated with that decline.
A similar argument says that industrialization has ruined our food supply, and blames the industry of agriculture for the decline in health in human beings.
The entertainment rant is centered largely around electronics, and culturally accepted modes of entertainment. This argument says that the increase in electronic technologies (such as the computer I’m typing on now) has led to a decrease in physical activity. People want to relax, and things like the television, video games, and the internet (via computers), have taken precedence as modes of recreation and relaxation over physical activity.
Both of these rants have something in common, similar to discussions about the built environment. They both imply that human beings cannot make choices about their activities, or about what they do with their time. That is, the industrialization rant implies that people are slaves to the machine. That there is no alternative but to take part in industry as it has come to be, which means sitting for long hours, commuting to work in cars and buses, etc., and not being physically active. The entertainment rant implies that people cannot choose to participate in physical activity due to the presence of more tempting options.
This argument – lack of self-control – is also similar to that made by many diet studies, programs and books. You cannot control what foods are produced, and since that’s what’s largely available, you’ll tend to eat higher-calorie foods, and, combined with your sedentarism, that will lead to overweight and disease.
Paradox
One of the keys to realizing that all of these rants are related, and that they all may be addressing their respective issues in ways that are not consistent with what is actually happening, is the presence of paradox.
Before we go into the pardoxes, I want to mention here, that this is the crux of what I’m saying – the ways that we’re addressing participation in physical activity are related to (and built from) the very problems leading to a decreases in physical activity – a lack of individual self-control, a lack of the teaching of that in our culture(s), and a continuing insistence on the necessity for policing/control measures.
A paradox is a situation that is contradictory to itself. I, personally, think that paradoxes usually signal that the approach to understanding the situation is the source of the paradox. That is, that nothing is “truly” paradoxical…we just perceive it that way.
From the examples above, industrialization was “supposed to” create more time, freeing up the average person’s day to enjoy leisure (which would include physical activity). But all of that free-time meant that you had more time to be “productive,” to try to “get ahead.” And corporations realized that they could be more “productive” and “get ahead.” So no one ever (except Kellogg‘s) had their employees work fewer hours for the same pay. That’s a paradox. Industrial technology was supposed to be “time saving.” We should have more free time when “time is saved.” But we don’t…we have less. How is that possible?
Similarly, the internet age was “supposed” to bring un-told advances in human freedom and communication. But instead, it brought things like YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook…”time-wasters.” Again, a “time saver” turned into a “time waster.”
The availability of plentiful food was the promise of agriculture. But now some say that agriculture has lead to disease, through its overproduction (and subsequent, “inevitable,” overconsumption) of grain products (not to mention the ill effects of pesticides, genetic modifications, and tilling the soil (it kills all of the microorganisms in the topsoil…)). What was supposed to feed us ended up poisoning us?!
Questions of “Pure Culture”
On the other side, the studies I’ve read that have to do purely with culture, with regard to physical activity or sport often focus on things like racial or religious cultures. Sometimes, those papers also considers smaller, individual cultures, participating in a particular type of physical activity (a certain sport, perhaps).
Those studies were very informative, about a particular culture in a particular place, at a particular time. But they weren’t very generalizable (able to be turned into “rules”), and were never (of the ones I read) generalized (i.e., turned into “rules” of culture and then applied to another culture).
I haven’t been able to find a single research paper or article that focuses on “United States culture” in relation to physical activity. Surely there is a “culture” that is the culture of the United States…right?
But maybe that paper is unnecessary. We can look at things like the recent research on Framingham Heart Study data that showed that we have very similar physical qualities (particularly, diseases) to our friends. That is, we’re much more likely to be a smoker if our friends smoke. I think it’s also true that we’re much more likely to exercise if our friends exercise.
But what is the cause here? Is it that “birds of a feather flock together,” so, because I like to exercise (or smoke) I naturally gravitate to others who share my interests? Or is it that, once I start to hang out with a certain group of people, “peer pressure” leads me to start doing as they do? Or is there a balance, where my set of values must match their set by a certain percentage? If that percentage is high, I stay in the group, if it is low, I leave.
But what about groups or cultures where we all come up together at the same time? My childhood friends, for instance. None of us smoked or drank when we were 5. Yet some of us did when we were 16, and many (if not most) of us eventually went down completely different paths in life by the time we were in our early 20′s. What causes us to stay in one culture and leave another, when we all shared such similar beginnings?
The Fear of the “Individual”
That brings me to my final point. (Thank god, you say…yes, sorry, this is a long one!). I think that there is something deeper than culture (which I think is deeper than society, if you couldn’t tell).
That “thing” is the individual‘s internal “motivation.” Not strictly their “psychology,” but, rather, the full sum of that individual – their personal history, their thoughts and beliefs, their mindset, their resiliency, their physical constitution.
It’s the reason we see kids who couldn’t get a grade above a C in high school become straight-A students in college, or college dropouts start their own businesses and have a high degree of success, or people who’ve never exercised a day in the past ten years get up and start running ultra-marathons.
I think we like to make broad sweeping generalizations (hahaha). It is the aim of science to do so – to “figure out” the “rules.” But lost in that mix is what is really happening. Lost in the averages of many individuals is the single individual.
Not only that, but the other things that are lost when we deny the validity, the existence, and the sanctity, of the individual. We lose concepts like self-control, or self-motivation, self-responsibility, self-actualization. We also lose concepts related to real teaching, real communication, and real equality.
And instead of using our wonderful massive brains to create a technology, or a “science” of the individual, we use it to explain why any single “individual” who stands out from the “average” is a fluke…an exception…
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.
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!
