[Microblog] There is No "Right Way" To Do A Yoga Pose

hovering-pigeon.jpg

When I think about yoga alignment, the approach I take these days is that there is no one "right" way to practice any yoga pose. The right way to align a yoga pose really depends on who is practicing the pose and what their individual goals are. Our goals can also change every time we practice a pose, and that's actually great. Otherwise we just practice the same thing the same way all the time and never provide new input into our tissues or our nervous system.

In this "hovering" variation of pigeon pose, my goal is to create *strength* in my hips in a pigeon-like joint arrangement. This is good stuff that will create tissue health and neurological control in my hips - something that nearly all of us can use more of. Consider changing up your pigeon pose regularly and all your other poses too - as long as they align with your specific goal in the moment, then that is "right" way for you to practice the pose.

Top 5 Movement Science Insights For Yoga Teachers

These are 5 of the most eye-opening insights I have learned from anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, and pain science that have given me a much different perspective on the body than the one I learned through my yoga studies alone. I hope you find these ideas interesting and inspiring for your own yoga practice and teaching!

Each of these insights is simply my best offer at a summary and takeaway for yoga teachers who might not have the time or interest to study these issues thoroughly on their own. There are volumes more to be read about each of these points from primary and secondary sources, so feel free to investigate the links and references I've included below, or to do your own research on these topics to help you come to your own conclusions.

If you're interested in how one might embody these Top 5 insights in their yoga teaching, consider trying some classes in my online class library, which is a great resource of practices from myself and other wonderful science-minded yoga teachers I admire.

Please read the insights below with a willingness to question your own biases and an openness to incorporate critical thinking into your approach to yoga and movement. Without further ado, here are my Top 5 Movement Science Insights For Yoga Teachers!

 

 

MOVEMENT SCIENCE INSIGHT #1: STRETCHING & STRENGTHENING ARE NOT OPPOSITES

One of the core rules we tend to learn in our yoga teacher trainings is that after we've "worked" or “strengthened” a muscle or muscle group, we should then stretch the area to lengthen it back out and restore "balance". The reasoning behind this rule is usually that when a muscle "works" or "contracts", it is shortening. Therefore to avoid leaving your muscle in an excessively shortened state, you should balance it out by "lengthening" or "stretching" it after you've worked it.

This idea would make sense if muscles did only shorten when they contract. But shortening while contracting is actually only one part of the physiological equation - muscles work just as often as they lengthen too. Picture your hamstrings and the way they lengthen while they're working to control your swan dive into uttanasana (standing forward fold) in yoga. When a muscle works as it lengthens, this is called an "eccentric contraction", and we move this way all the time in our normal human movements. [Ref]

Because muscles can and do actually contract through all of their ranges (short, long, somewhere in between, etc.), it is clear that the physiological opposite of a muscle contraction is not a stretch. With this in mind, it might be time to re-think our classic "strengthen it, then stretch it" rule!

 

MOVEMENT SCIENCE INSIGHT #2: NO YOGA POSES ARE INHERENTLY "BAD" OR "GOOD"

Last year I wrote a blog post called Are Some Movements Inherently Bad? which basically suggested that no movements are inherently “bad”, and the only truly bad movement is one for which your individual body is not prepared or conditioned. But the inverse of this insight is also true. While no movement is inherently bad, no movement is inherently good, either. There is a trend in the yoga world toward teaching yoga poses and other movements like “corrective exercises” that are thought of as "better", more "functional", or "healthier" for the body. But the reality is that movements don't have inherent value (i.e. "better for you", "worse for you", etc.) outside of the specific context of who is practicing the movement and with what goal in mind.

We honor the complexity of the human body and its relationship to movement when we avoid valuing certain yoga poses and movements as inherently better, more functional, or worse than other yoga poses and movements. Context and individualized goals are the main determinants of what makes a movement “good”, “bad”, “functional”, or “dysfunctional”.

 

MOVEMENT SCIENCE INSIGHT #3: ALIGNMENT IS LESS ABOUT INJURY-PREVENTION AND MORE ABOUT LOAD-OPTIMIZATION

We generally learn in our yoga teacher trainings that alignment is important in yoga poses primarily because it prevents injuries. However, we’re now learning that the categories of alignment, injury, and pain are not as interrelated as we have previously been taught. Many people exhibit “poor alignment” and are pain-free, while many others exhibit “stellar” alignment and have chronic pain (and to make matters more confusing, pain and injury (i.e. tissue damage) are also not always correlated either.) [Link]

It turns out that the human body is more resilient and adaptable than previous models of alignment and pain have accounted for. Our body actually has a remarkable ability to adapt to become stronger in response to the loads it experiences (as long as those loads aren’t beyond the ability of our tissues to withstand.) [Link] Therefore if we habitually position ourselves in a way that is different from “ideal alignment”, it’s less likely that our body will sustain inevitable damage from the “misalignment” and more likely that our body will simply adapt to better handle the loads of this alignment. (This is assuming that the joints in question are asymptomatic and healthy, of course!)

Now in a high-load situation, such as squatting in the gym with a 300-pound barbell on one’s back, alignment is undeniably an important tool for minimizing risk of injury. [Link] Activities like this involve high forces that are more likely to be beyond the ability of our tissues to withstand, and so aligning our joints intelligently is definitely recommended.

But compared to heavy weightlifting scenarios, yoga is for the most part a low-load activity. Small variances in alignment under low load are not enough to cause inevitable injury and damage in most bodies. For example, if someone’s front knee drifts inward a few centimeters in warrior 2 (breaking the classic alignment rule of keeping the knee stacked directly over the ankle), the tissues of the knee will most likely respond to that load by adapting to become stronger at that angle. And if the shoulders drift slightly out of “joint-stacked” alignment over the wrists in plank pose, the shoulders, elbows, and wrists should be signaled to grow stronger and better able to handle load from this new angle.

In fact, exposing our body to variable loads like this is actually a great way to prevent injury because it helps condition our tissues to become stronger at all angles, rather than strong in only the classic “joint-stacked” position of traditional alignment rules. I would argue that increasing the ability of one's tissues to tolerate load by strengthening the body at all angles and ranges is a much more effective strategy for injury-prevention than "alignment" is.

These days I view alignment as a tool that helps my students direct the loads in their bodies where I intend for those loads to go, rather than as a necessary tool for injury-prevention.

 

MOVEMENT SCIENCE INSIGHT #4: WE USE TOO MUCH FEAR-BASED LANGUAGE AROUND ALIGNMENT IN YOGA

This insight piggybacks right onto insight #3. It’s very common in the yoga world to pepper our alignment instructions with cautionary language, such as “Align your front knee right over your ankle in Warrior 2 to protect your knee” or “Press your pubic bone into the floor in shalabhasana to keep your low back safe.”

As well-intentioned as they are, warnings like this can actually serve to instill a false sense of fragility in our students, which can counterintuitively result in their experiencing pain. We know now that pain is a creation of the nervous system in response to a perceived threat. And our beliefs about our body are actually one influence that can directly escalate or de-escalate our nervous system’s perception of threat and output of pain. [Ref], [Ref], [Ref] Therefore the more we trust in the robustness and resiliency of our body, the more we communicate a message of confidence to our nervous system, which is likely to result in lower threat levels and decreased pain. And conversely, the more we believe that our bodies are innately fragile and vulnerable to injury from low loads and small micro-“misalignments”, the more likely our beliefs are to contribute to increased threat levels and increased pain.

In warrior 2 pose, stating that keeping the knee directly above the ankle is important “to protect your knee” is a potentially nocebic suggestion to offer to our students. (A nocebo is a negative expectation of an otherwise harmless event or action that causes negative consequences like pain.) Likewise, stating that the pubic bone should stay grounded in shalabhasana “to keep your low back safe” suggests to our students that their spines are fragile structures that will experience damage if their pelvis is tilted a few millimeters in the “wrong” direction.

Instead of using cautionary, nocebic language about alignment in our yoga classes, consider talking about alignment in terms of what it helps us achieve in our poses. For example, in warrior 2 we could say “Keep your front knee lined up over your ankle to engage your lateral hip muscles” or “Press your pubic bone into the floor in shalabhasana to lengthen your low back and direct the backbend into your thoracic spine.” These types of cues utilize alignment more for load-optimization reasons and less for injury-prevention reasons. Instead of instilling a sense of fragility about their bodies, these types of cues encourage increased body awareness in our students, which can be confidence-building and empowering.

 

MOVEMENT SCIENCE INSIGHT #5: TWO COMMON YOGA CUES WE CAN STOP USING

We often teach yoga poses in a way that tells our students which specific muscles they should (or should not) be contracting in particular movements.

In certain contexts, suggesting which muscles a student should be using at any given time can be a useful type of guidance. But it's helpful to realize that as a general rule, our nervous system actually does a good job of automatically organizing and coordinating the movement of our body all on its own, without needing much conscious input from our thinking mind. In fact, consciously "micromanaging" which muscles our nervous system chooses to recruit can often interfere with our built-in, sophisticated motor control system in a way that results in less efficient movement. [Ref]

With this in mind, here are two cues that are very common in the yoga world today that we could all use to stop giving:

1) The glutes & bridge/wheel: there is no need to tell our students that they should "soften their glutes", "relax their glutes", or otherwise disempower the main muscles of hip extension that their bodies naturally recruit when they lift their hips up into bridge pose (setu bandha sarvangasana) and upward-facing bow pose (urdhva dhanurasana). [Ref]

2) Arms overhead & shoulder positioning: there is no need to cue our students to "pull your shoulders down your back" when their arms are overhead. When our arms lift up, our shoulder blades naturally rotate and lift along with the arm movement. [Ref] This is a normal, optimal movement that is often referred to as "scapulohumeral rhythm", and it is not helpful to interfere with this natural coordinated action by trying to consciously pull the shoulder blades down the back to prevent them from lifting.

 

Thank you for reading these Top 5 insights with an open mind, and I hope to see you on the mat virtually or in person in the near future!

Podcast Interview: Pain Science For Yoga/Movement Teachers

I was lucky enough to get to talk about pain science and what implications it has for us yoga/pilates/movement teachers on the wonderful Moving Well podcast! Nikki Naab-Levy and Janet Sunderland are the very smart and engaging hosts of this podcast, and I really enjoyed having the opportunity to talk with them about one of my favorite topics to geek out about. :)

I hope you enjoy the interview if you have the chance to listen to it!

Fascia Myths and Fascia Facts

Have you noticed that the word “fascia” has become somewhat of a buzzword in the yoga world lately? There have been lots of articles written about this newly-appreciated bodily tissue (I myself have written two of them in the past few years!), and fascia has become a focus in many yoga classes - especially those that include rolling on self-massage tools like balls and foam rollers.

I understand this preoccupation with fascia, because it is a truly fascinating topic. Fascia is a type of connective tissue that forms a continuous body-wide web inside of us, surrounding and interpenetrating all of our muscles, bones, organs, nerves, and blood and lymph vessels. In fact, in addition to forming the architecture that weaves our inner structures together, our connective tissue system as a whole also absorbs and transmits force inside of us, working in conjunction with our muscular system to create smooth, efficient movement. Such insights have the power to expand the way we understand movement, which is very exciting!

In addition to these inherently interesting facts, there are other claims commonly made about fascia that are widely-believed, but reach a bit too far ahead of the research to be actually supported. Today I’d like to address a few of these specific claims in an attempt to encourage our yoga community to embrace a more science-based, productive dialog about the popular topic of fascia and the wonderful practices of massage and rolling.

 

MYTH #1: ROLLING ON BALLS AND OTHER MASSAGE TOOLS BREAKS DOWN FASCIAL ADHESIONS, KNOTS, AND SCAR TISSUE

Every massage therapist knows the experience of finding a tight spot in her client’s body, massaging it, and feeling it “release” or “relax” underneath her hands. It seems natural to assume that through her hands, she physically broke down a knot in her client’s fascia - and that through rolling on massage tools, we can do the same to ourselves too.

But one lesser-known fact about fascia is that its collagen fibers are literally as strong as steel. [Ref] To actually “break them up” would require so much force application that one’s body would sustain serious injury - this is not something that is achieved by a massage therapist’s hands or by a pair of massage balls.

Although you may feel a tight spot in your body change its texture after rolling or being massaged, this change was not due to the architecture of the fascia changing. For fascia to actually change its architecture, many, many inputs are required over a long time - collagen takes about three years in order to completely change and remodel. [Ref] Any instantaneous changes in tissue quality that you experience as the result of a massage are not the “breaking down” of adhesions, knots, or scar tissue - they are instead changes in tissue tone that are mediated by the nervous system. [Ref]

Once we understand that soft tissue treatments like massage and rolling work primarily via neurological communication instead of via physically breaking down adhesions, knots, and scar tissue, we might be encouraged to administer these treatments more gently than forcefully. When we roll and massage ourselves with deep, forceful pressure, this can often increase nervous system threat levels and sensitivity, which can be counterproductive to our efforts. Gentler, milder work is often more successful at decreasing threat levels and coaxing the nervous system to relax our tissues.

Massage and rolling on balls are undeniably wonderful, potent tools that help so many of us feel better in our bodies, but when we understand more about the mechanism for why they work, we will naturally be able to use them more wisely.

 

MYTH #2: WE FEEL PAIN IN OUR BODY BECAUSE OUR FASCIA IS FULL OF KNOTS, ADHESIONS, AND SCAR TISSUE

This is a very common belief, but it turns out that it is based on some inaccurate information about how pain works. I’ve written about the science of pain before [here and here], but one of the most foundational aspects of pain is that it is an output from the central nervous system, not an input from the periphery. It’s easy to be confused about this concept because when we feel pain, we feel it in a particular area of our body. It feels like the pain is in our tissues, and it’s our tissues that are therefore causing it. But the pain doesn’t actually reside in our tissues at all - it is 100% an experience that our nervous system has created for us to perceive - most likely to serve as some sort of protective signal.

Because pain is an output and not an input, adhesions, knots, and scar tissues - which are located in the periphery of our body (if they exist at all - but that’s a whole other topic!) - are not actually capable of creating pain. This concept might be tough to grasp, especially because we know that a massage therapist can touch a certain “knotty-feeling” spot on our body and it might feel tender or painful. But the pain you feel there was not created by the knot - it was created by your brain and experienced in that spot. Additionally, we know that we can have other painful-to-the-touch places in our body that do not actually correspond with a “knot” or tight spot that resides there. The flesh in those painful spots instead feels smooth and knot-free. And there are probably quite a few other locations in your body that definitely feel “knotty”-like when palpated, but are not associated with pain at all. [Ref]

As it turns out, pain and tissue quality are separate entities that sometimes overlap, but oftentimes do not. While it's easy to believe that all tight spots underneath our skin are problematic, the truth is that many of them are probably just normal, healthy variations in our tissue texture. And pain, regardless of where it is felt in the body, has less to do with knots, adhesions, and scar tissue, and more to do with a nervous system that has been sensitized around a particular area. This is a helpful, progressive change in perspective because the less that we pathologize the physical feel of "tightness" and "knottiness" in our tissues, the less likely we are to create nocebos for ourselves or our yoga students and massage clients. (A nocebo is a negative expectation of an otherwise harmless event or action that causes negative consequences like pain.)

 

MYTH #3: OUR FASCIA CAN BECOME DEHYDRATED AND ROLLING ON MASSAGE TOOLS HELPS TO RE-HYDRATE IT

This is an absolutely appealing and intuitive idea, but to the best of my knowledge, we don’t have research that supports this claim. Part of the problem lies in a lack of specificity for how this proposed dehydration/rehydration process would work.

An artist's depiction of connective tissue.

An artist's depiction of connective tissue.

In simple terms, our connective tissue is made up of cells, collagen fibers, and a non-living gelatinous matrix called ground substance. When the claim is made that fascia can be dehydrated, I believe the notion is that its ground substance is dehydrated.

It’s unclear to me how it could be determined that someone’s ground substance is dehydrated, however - can you tell by looking at someone from the outside? Maybe by looking at their skin? Can you tell because they feel pain somewhere? (As we mentioned earlier, pain and tissue quality are poorly correlated.)

Even if there was a reliable way to assess fascial dehydration, it is unclear to me how a massage or rolling on balls or other tools would hydrate it. The ground substance of connective tissue definitely has some water content, but how would the pressure from rolling change this water content? (Water that you drink goes through different channels in your body than water in your ground substance, so that's a different type of hydration than fascial hydration.) Does rolling add new water to fascia (how?), or does it move already-existing water from another part of the body to the deydrated one? If rolling did increase water content, wouldn’t everyone’s glutes be extra hydrated and especially healthy because so many of us squash them with pressure by sitting on them for hours every day?

Most of us believe this hydration claim because we heard it from someone knowledgeable like a smart yoga instructor or an experienced bodywork teacher. But if we actually look to connective tissue biology for some factual basis to the claim, we find that there is little support there. It may be true that massage can hydrate our dehydrated fascia, but research has not yet demonstrated this in a clear way. I believe we would do more of a service to our yoga community by waiting to make claims like this until science begins to produce some solid evidence for them.

 

In summary, fascia is an incredibly fascinating tissue of the body for an abundance of reasons. But we will better serve ourselves and our students if we shed some of our language about fascia that implies that it is full of painful adhesions and scar tissue that need to be broken down and hydrated. Additionally, massage therapy and self-massage tools like balls and foam rollers are absolutely wonderful, helpful practices that offer great results for so many people. But when we recognize and teach an awareness of the often-overlooked role that the nervous system plays in many of these massage benefits, we will be able to utilize these tools even more powerfully for ourselves and our students and clients.

 

(If you're interested in exploring these ideas further, you might appreciate this video from Quinn Henoch, Doctor of Physical Therapy:)

[Microblog] A muscle isn't a muscle to your brain

We tend to think of muscles as the individual, isolated structures that we see in our anatomy books - the biceps, the hamstrings, the psoas (or to be super geeky, *psoai* if we're talking about 2 of them), etc. But did you know that this is NOT how your brain understands muscles?

Your brain doesn't actually know what a "psoas" or a "biceps" is. These are arbitrary names that we give to our parts so that we can learn and communicate about them (which is a good thing!) But the brain doesn't think in terms of individual muscles - instead, it perceives and directs *motor units*, which are tiny subsets of individual muscles.

In this sense, we could really think about each muscle as actually being made up of thousands of smaller muscles, which are where movement truly happens in the body.

Whoa man!

[Microblog] Anatomy Geek Stretching Thought of the Day

ANATOMY GEEK THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We often think of a muscle contraction happening only when a muscle *shortens*. But muscles work just as often as they lengthen - picture your hamstrings and the way they lengthen while they work to control your swan dive into uttanasana (standing forward fold) in yoga. When a muscle works as it lengthens, this is called an *eccentric contraction*, and we move this way all the time in our normal human movements.

One of the core rules we tend to learn in our yoga teacher trainings is that after we've "worked" a muscle or muscle group, we should stretch that muscle group to "balance it out". But because muscles can and do actually contract through all of their ranges (short, long, somewhere in between, etc.), is it skillful to consider the opposite of a muscle contraction a *stretch*? Do these two "balance" each other out? If it turned out that they were not necessarily opposing actions, would this change the way you sequence your yoga classes at all?

Enjoy pondering this one, and feel free to let me know how it goes!

Jumping Back To Plank: What's the Big Deal?

All my life in the yoga world, I have heard the instruction that one should never jump back into plank pose. Instead of landing in plank, this core yoga rule goes, we should land directly in chaturanga dandasana - in other words, we should always jump into the bottom of a push-up and never jump into the top of a push-up. The reasons usually cited for this instruction are that jumping back into plank is injurious for any number of body parts including the wrists, shoulders, low back, knees, ankles, and big toes.

I used to believe and teach this yoga rule as well, but in more recent times I have changed my perspective on the issue. I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with jumping back into plank pose, and I think the widespread prohibition of this movement mostly serves to create some unnecessary fear and worry about our yoga practice.

Here are my main reasons for this viewpoint - I hope you use them to examine your beliefs and then come to your own conclusion about the "never jump to plank" rule!
 

Reason #1: You can certainly injure yourself jumping into plank, but...

I definitely agree that it's possible to injure oneself while jumping into plank pose. If you lack the ability to engage through your core, press strongly through your arms, and land lightly, some areas of your body may experience a higher-than-optimal level of stress, which could lead to injury. But I fail to see how this is different from so many other movements in yoga that can also be injurious if one lacks proper technique and body awareness - yet we don't make blanket statements about the importance of "never" doing most of these other movements.

If we jump back to plank with no arms, will this protect our shoulders? :)

If we jump back to plank with no arms, will this protect our shoulders? :)

One yoga transition that stands out to me as especially risky for the body if one lacks the proper strength and control is, ironically, jumping straight into chaturanga. Even though chaturanga is traditionally considered the safer asana to jump into, this pose is actually much more challenging to execute skillfully than plank pose. Chaturanga involves much higher loads to the neck, shoulders, and spine than plank pose does, and these loads are significantly higher if we jump into the pose (especially if we slam down with a lot of velocity like many yogis do) instead of lower slowly into it. In fact, so many yoga students lack the foundational skills to practice chaturanga well that I created a whole online tutorial on how to approach this pose with integrity.

I would suggest that contrary to popular teachings, one is at greater risk of injury from performing a sloppy jump-back into chaturanga than they are from performing a sloppy jump-back into plank pose.

 

Reason #2: Jumping Into Plank Is Commonly Practiced In Other Movement Systems Without Concern Or Widespread Injury

The "burpee", a common warm-up exercise that includes a jump-back to plank.

The "burpee", a common warm-up exercise that includes a jump-back to plank.

If you ever visit a gym or other fitness setting, a common movement used for warming up that you'd likely see is something called a burpee. (Yes, I agree that this is an odd name for an exercise, but a fun trivia note is that the burpee is named after the person who founded it - a physiologist named Royal H. Burpee.)

To perform a burpee, one begins in a standing position, lowers down into a squat, jumps back into plank pose with straight arms, often performs one push-up, jumps forward again into a squat, and then jumps up and lands back in a standing position. A typical "set" of burpees is anywhere from 10-15 done in a row, and people typically perform at least 3 sets (and often many more) in one workout. In addition to this classic exercise, there are many variations, such as the one-leg burpee, in which one jumps back into a one-legged plank instead of a traditional plank, the side burpee, in which one jumps into a variation of side plank, and the one-arm burpee, in which the entire movement is performed with one arm lifted.

In addition, multiple research studies have been done by exercise scientists which include the burpee as a movement alongside other classic fitness exercises. (Examples here and here.)

The fact that the burpee, which involves jumping back into plank pose repetitively, is so prevalent in the fitness world and is also included in research studies suggests to me that it has not been found by fitness professionals or sports scientists to be particularly injurious for the body.

 

Reason #3: Jumping Into Plank Could Actually Have Some Benefits

To be honest, even though I don't believe that jumping into plank pose is inherently dangerous, I don't tend to teach this movement very often in my yoga classes. But I do believe that jumping into plank (and chaturanga for that matter) could have some benefits for the body that we often overlook when we focus on fear and worry about this transition instead.

There is a type of fitness training called plyometrics which utilizes jumping exercises to increase a person's power, or the speed at which they can use their strength during a task. Plyometrics are also known to enhance one's endurance and agility, and several studies have actually shown that they can increase bone density (examples here, here, and here).

There is some debate about whether a burpee (a.k.a. the fitness world's version of "jumping into plank") can technically be considered a plyometric exercise. But I believe there is enough crossover between the two to suggest that they would offer some similar benefits.

An example of a plyometric exercise.

An example of a plyometric exercise.

Additionally, we know that movement variability is important for neural learning, tissue health, and overall graceful aging, so the argument could be made that learning how to jump back skillfully into both plank and chaturanga - and not just one or the other - could be beneficial.

 

Reason #4: There Are No Inherently Bad Movements

You might recall a controversial blog post I wrote earlier this year called Are Some Movements Inherently Bad? (also re-published in Yoga International with a far more angry comment thread here.) In this post, I argued that instead of looking at a movement as inherently bad and damaging for the body, we should reverse our reasoning and instead look at an individual body and ask if it is adapted and prepared to handle the loads of that particular movement.

For example, a beginning yoga student with an office-working, sedentary lifestyle who has never borne weight on her arms might be prone to injury if she tries jumping into plank (and even more so if she tries jumping into chaturanga - yikes!) But because the biological reality of our bodies is that they adapt to become stronger to the loads they experience on a regular basis, most practiced yogis who have a good sense of body control and core stabilization should be able to jump lightly into plank pose without causing injury.

 

CONCLUSION

To be clear, I'm certainly not suggesting that all yoga teachers run out and start teaching everyone to jump into plank during every vinyasa. I'm simply questioning the reasoning behind the ubiquitous "never jump into plank" warning that nearly every yoga teacher learns in their yoga teacher training. Is this transition necessarily dangerous for everyone, and is jumping into chaturanga somehow innately safer? Where do these beliefs stem from? I believe that questioning our biases about these transitions can help us to become more critically-thinking yoga teachers who can serve our individual students better.

4 Basic Pain Science Concepts For Yoga Teachers, Part 1

I recently created a series of social media posts designed to help yoga teachers become better-informed about the complex topic of pain science. Pain science is growing in its reach in the therapeutic, fitness, and movement world, and even though yoga teachers generally don't treat people for pain (unless you're also a physical therapist or other health care professional in addition to being a yoga teacher), pain science actually has many important implications for us beyond the subject of pain itself. As yoga teachers, if we take the time to learn about even a handful of some of pain science's most fundamental insights, we'll be rewarded with a more current and accurate paradigm for approaching and dialoguing about not only pain, but movement, yoga, and bodies in general.

Here is a re-cap of the series of four posts that I shared through my social media channels so that they can be read all in one place together, and I'll follow up with Part 2 of this blog post series with some additional, new thoughts on how and why all of this might matter specifically to us as yoga teachers. I hope you enjoy perusing this info - feel free to share with your networks if you feel that it would be beneficial!


PAIN SCIENCE FACT #1: Pain and tissue damage do not always correlate. In fact, when it comes to persistent pain (often defined as pain lasting more than 3 months), the link between pain and tissue damage is often significantly weaker. (And yes, if you experience a pain that "comes and goes" versus a constant, steady pain that is always there, that is still considered persistent pain if it's been going on for longer than 3 months.)

Reason this is important: just because someone experiences pain somewhere in their body, this does not necessarily mean that there is *actual injured tissue* inside of their body. It might mean that, but it also really might not. (Remember, this is more likely the case when we're talking about persistent pain - not so much with acute pain. Acute pain is the direct result of a recent injury - like stubbing your toe on the door jam or spraining your ankle due to an accidental fall. Acute pain usually lessens and then stops once the injury has healed. Persistent pain, on the other hand, is also often also called chronic pain and is pain that lasts for a longer amount of time.)


PAIN SCIENCE FACT #2: Pain is an output of the brain. This is an often-cited pain science insight - but what does it actually mean? Remember that pain science involves a major perspective shift in how we see the body, so we really have to wrap our minds around some new concepts here. Typically, when we experience pain, we tend to think of the pain as being located "in our tissues", and our brain then senses it there and THEN we feel it. In this view, pain is an INPUT to the brain because it first exists "out there" in the periphery of our body, and then we sense it centrally (in our brain).

As intuitive as this "input" idea seems, it's actually the opposite of how pain really works! In reality, there is no pain *anywhere* in our tissues that is inputted to our brain. Instead, pain is a creation OF the brain that is meant to signal us to take protective action against a perceived threat. If you feel pain in your shoulder, for example, it's because your brain is *outputting* a warning signal to you about that area for some reason. Pain is therefore not an input from your tissues to your brain - it's an output from your brain to your tissues! How mind-trippy is that?

Now your brain might be correct that this painful area is under threat (especially if you recently injured that spot - too many sloppy chaturangas, anyone? Heh heh...) But your brain might also be wrong in its conclusion that the area is under threat - especially if there is no recent tissue damage there. And pain without tissue damage (and vice versa - tissue damage without pain) happens ALL. THE. TIME. Refer back to Pain Science Fact #1 to review this concept, and then see if you can put Fact #1 and #2 together to start to build your new pain science-informed paradigm.


PAIN SCIENCE FACT #3: We've already covered (in a very simplified way) the fact that pain is an output FROM the brain, not an input TO the brain. Pain doesn't exist in one's tissues to be sensed by the brain - it is instead a creation OF the brain to be sensed in one's tissues. But why and when does the brain choose to create pain?

We used to believe that all pain experienced in the body was the result of tissue damage somewhere inside of us - in other words, we thought pain was always the result of some structural problem. But we now understand that tissue damage is just *one input* that the brain considers when deciding whether to emit a pain signal. In addition to tissue damage, the brain considers inputs like past memories, emotions, expectations, beliefs, one's environment, things that health professionals say, and more when deciding whether to output a pain experience in any given moment. All of this information processing happens unconsciously, and in just a fraction of a second.

Now that you know this, think about someone who experiences a persistent pain in their low back (like 80% of us will at some point in our lifetimes). Here is a list of common reasons given when someone has back pain: your spine is out of alignment, you have a herniated disc in your spine, you have poor posture, you flex your lumbar spine too much, your SI joint is dysfunctional, you sit in a chair too much, you have SI joint instability, your core is weak, you have a vertebral subluxation, you lack core stability, your back muscles are tight, etc., etc.

This is a really long list of commonly-cited reasons for back pain, but the interesting thing is that they are ALL structural reasons - meaning that they all have to do with the physical structure of the body. But remember our new Fact #3 from today: the brain takes MANY inputs into consideration before deciding to output pain, and structural inputs are just ONE category of inputs. Combine Fact #3 with Fact #1 (the link between persistent pain and tissue damage is often quite weak), and your paradigm for how you think about someone's back pain might begin to shift and expand.


PAIN SCIENCE FACT #4: We often believe that our body is naturally vulnerable in certain movements or postures, like lumbar flexion, forward head posture ("text neck"), etc. We believe that these positions will injure our tissues and create pain, often blaming someone's low back or neck pain on these "bad postures".

What this viewpoint (that I used to share too!) overlooks is the fact that the tissues of our body are adaptable and become stronger when they are loaded (as long as the load isn't too high). Any movement that you desire to do is a "good" movement as long as your tissues are adapted to withstand its loads. (This is a super oversimplified explanation, but for more info, check out my blog post Are Some Movements Inherently Bad? (which was also re-printed in Yoga International).

Additionally, recall Fact #3 of this series - *many* inputs contribute to pain, not just structural ones. Recent research has strongly suggested that our *beliefs* about pain can directly influence our pain. For example, if we believe that a certain movement is bad for us, this can create what's called a nocebo - the creation or increase of pain or dysfunction based solely on negative expectations and beliefs.

BIG TAKEAWAY: The issue isn't that we need to *avoid* certain "bad" postures and catastrophize them - it's more that we want to move our body in a *wide variety of ways* so that we can be strong and adapted to many different positions. Movement variability is more important than fear of movement!


That concludes the series of posts that I shared through social media, but keep your eyes out for Part 2 of this series, which will attempt to address why all of this matters specifically to us yoga teachers. In the meantime, I also wrote a helpful introduction to pain science in Yoga International earlier this year (see "Yoga & The New Science of Pain"), and at the bottom of that article I included a lengthy list of links for further reading for those interested. Enjoy exploring this topic further if you feel so compelled!