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!

Pelvic-Tucking and Lumbar Flexion: Movements We Shouldn't Do In Yoga?

Last year, I wrote two separate blog posts addressing an unhelpful trend I had noticed in the yoga community: the over-use of the pelvis-tucking cue by yoga teachers. Instead of offering the instruction to tuck one’s pelvis only when doing so would specifically enhance the anatomical intention of a pose, many yoga teachers (and yoga teacher training programs in general) were treating the pelvis-tucking cue as an almost universal action that students should be working throughout their entire yoga practice.

In today’s blog post I'd like to address this same alignment issue again, but this time from a surprisingly different perspective. Since the time that I wrote these two pieces, I have noticed that this pelvis-tucking message has grown much more widespread in the yoga community, which is a wonderful progressive step for us. However, this shift in perspective has brought with it a large population of yogis who are now taking a stand on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the original issue. Today, I regularly hear yoga teachers report that they “never teach to tuck the pelvis”, that they have dropped this instruction from their teaching language altogether, and that tucking the pelvis and the accompanying flexion of the lumbar spine that occurs are “bad” or “harmful” movements for the body and should not be practiced.

As well-intentioned as such viewpoints are, they are unfortunately not an improvement over the original situation. Instead of treating this as a black-or-white “to tuck or not to tuck” issue, I’d like to suggest that we move toward a nuanced approach to pelvic movement that takes into consideration the individual asana in question and the individual body being taught in the moment.

 

WHAT EXACTLY IS A PELVIC-TUCK?

First of all, let’s take a brief look at the anatomy of a pelvic tuck so that we can make sure we’re all on the same page when we talk about this term. Technically called a “posterior tilt of the pelvis”, this action takes place when the pelvis rotates backwards (or posteriorly) in the sagittal plane, which is the anatomical plane in which we view the body from the side. When this happens, the tailbone moves down and forward while the pubic symphysis (the place where the two pubic bones meet in the front of the pelvis) moves forward and up toward the navel.

Here’s a quick video of me demonstrating a pelvic tuck because visuals are always so helpful!

 

WHY DO MANY YOGA TEACHERS NOW BELIEVE WE SHOULD NEVER TUCK OUR PELVIS?

Many teachers have misinterpreted the messages calling for a more judicious approach to pelvic-tucking (like those of my original articles) to instead be messages calling for the cessation of all tucking everywhere by everyone. But aside from this, some yoga teachers have concerns about the flexion of the lumbar spine that happens when our pelvis tucks. Here’s a quick visual demonstration of this - do you see how when the pelvis posteriorly rotates, the lumbar spine naturally moves into flexion?

There is a widespread belief in the yoga and movement world that lumbar flexion is an inherently damaging movement for the body. (I used to believe this idea myself some time ago too!) The general claim is that spinal flexion puts an unhealthy amount of pressure on the lumbar spine which can lead to harmful conditions like joint degeneration, ligament sprains, and disc herniations. I’ve even heard statements like “Your spine is like a credit card. Repeatedly flexing it is like bending a credit card over and over - with enough time, the credit card will simply break.”

It turns out that cautions like these are based on a “lever system” model of the body which is limiting in its scope and is quickly becoming outdated. This model views the body, and especially the spine, as an inherently fragile structure that is quite vulnerable to injury when it experiences compressive forces. But a more current and accurate model of the body is that it is a naturally resilient biotensegrity structure whose tissues are supported three-dimensionally and have the ability to adapt to the demands placed upon them, thereby becoming stronger and better able to withstand load in the future.

Forces affect biotensegrity structures like the human body (new model) differently than they affect lever systems like machines (old model). Of course if the spine were to experience a high load while in a position of flexion (like in heavy weightlifting, for example), it could certainly be injured. But basic unloaded and low-loaded spinal flexion is a safe and natural movement for healthy spines.

When we pathologize a particular movement and tell people that it is inherently damaging, we create a significant amount of fear around that movement. When we have fearful beliefs about a movement, our brain is more likely to output pain for us when we do that movement (also known as a nocebo). This pain very likely has nothing to do with any actual tissue damage being caused by the movement, and instead has everything to do with beliefs and fear surrounding the movement. This will result in our participating in the movement less and less (sometimes called fear avoidance), which can cause us to lose mobility and range of motion in that direction of movement. (For more on this fascinating topic, you might be interested in viewing a workshop I recently taught on the anatomy of healthy spinal movement!)

 

IN CONCLUSION…

Beliefs about pelvis-tucking and lumbar flexion have moved from one end of the spectrum to the other in recent times. A current trend in the yoga world is to not teach or practice this movement at all because it is inherently harmful to our bodies. I am hopeful that our yoga community will settle on a more nuanced, less fear-based view of this issue in the near future. Our pelvis and spine and their adaptive, resilient tissues were designed to move in many different ways, and to keep these areas healthy and functioning well, we should move them in all of these ways on a regular basis. And when it comes to the specific yoga asanas that we teach or practice, we should let our anatomical intention for each pose - and not a one-size-fits-all rule - determine the pelvic positioning we teach.

 

 

FURTHER READING & EXPLORATION

If this is the first time you’ve heard this progressive message about lumbar flexion, here are a few suggestions for further reading and exploration on the topic:

-Jules Mitchell, M.S. - Watch her online class called Limber Lumbar (great name!) on the websites Udaya or Yoga Anytime, or even better, take her excellent Science of Stretching lecture series!

-Literature review research article: “To Crunch or Not to Crunch: An Evidence-Based Examination of Spinal Flexion Exercises, Their Potential Risks, and Their Applicability to Program Design” by Bret Contreras & Brad Schoenfeld

-Spinal Flexion Is Important for Low Back Health and Strength by Dean Somerset



Related Post: A Biomechanics-Informed Response to Yoga Journal: We Do Not Need To Tuck Our Tail In Every Yoga Pose

Related Post: Core Strength Fiction & Facts

Related Online Workshop: Anatomy of the Spine for Increased Core Connection

Responding to the Critics of My Recent Article in Yoga International

I am very thankful to Yoga International for publishing my recent 2-part article “Does Traditional Yoga Lead to Muscular Imbalance?” The piece received enthusiastic support from much of the yoga community, but there was also a significant amount of disagreement and negative reaction to the article that was quite surprising. I’d like to highlight some of this negative feedback today because it reveals the degree to which many in our yoga community are attached to beliefs about the practice which are not necessarily science-based.

Handstand (adho mukha vrksasana) and hanging are perfectly-balancing shoulder pushing & pulling movements.

Handstand (adho mukha vrksasana) and hanging are perfectly-balancing shoulder pushing & pulling movements.

If you haven’t read the article in question (here are links to Part 1 and Part 2), I’ll give you a quick synopsis to bring you up to speed. The main idea is that while yoga is an amazing practice for us, it isn’t a “complete” one from an anatomical perspective. Yoga includes an abundance of shoulder-pushing movements with no complementary shoulder-pulling movements, and the result is a functional strength imbalance in our shoulders that can lead to injury. This situation is easily remedied, however, by incorporating “pulling” movements like hanging, pull-ups, and seated rowing into our movement repertoire.

I decided to write this article for Yoga International because although yoga’s strength imbalance is a simple anatomical fact rooted in movement science, the majority of the yoga community seems unaware of it. Misinformed claims like “yoga strengthens every muscle of the body” or “yoga is a completely balanced, perfect practice” abound in the yoga world, and these messages encourage people to choose yoga as their sole form of structured movement. I wanted to shed light on the fact that this common notion about yoga is untrue, and that we could all benefit from incorporating some different types of strengthening movements into our lives to balance out our yoga practice.

But my article was not well-received by all of the yogis who read it. The negative reaction came in the form of two main disagreements - one philosophical and the other anatomical. Let’s examine the philosophical issue first.

 

THAT’S NOT “TRADITIONAL YOGA”

This first complaint was not actually a critique of the content of my article, but of the fact that I used the term “traditional yoga” in the title. These readers took issue with my use of the term because their belief about what constitutes traditional yoga differed from the yoga I was discussing in the article. Here are just a few examples of comments on the article which exemplify this point of view:

“Well perhaps you should stop using the term ‘traditional yoga,’ since it is an incorrect usage. It brings into question whether you know anything at all about Yoga.” 
“Real, traditional yoga is a science of consciousness and meditation. Hatha Yoga, a branch of Yoga Science, is the science of preparing the body to sit comfortably for long periods of time, in a perfectly balanced satvic [sic] manner, so that it becomes ‘invisible’ to the mind.”
“Yoga was never meant to build your body. You go to the gym and do other exercises for that. Traditional yoga DOES NOT lead to muscular imbalance.”
“For me it seems that part of the problem is that recently (over the past 20 years especially) yoga classes have centred [sic] on vinyasa-style sun-salutation-based classes. I would prefer not to think of this as traditional (whatever that might mean) rather as a contemporary focus on rajasic asana practice. Asana practice, like any yoga practice, should lead to sattva, and for those that do, the question of ‘pushing' doesn't arise.”
“Totally agree with the other comments that ‘yoga’ is not the problem rather modern asana which is certainly not ‘traditional’.”

And this response came from a message that a reader emailed directly to me:

“Dear Jenni. How surprised I was to read yr part 1 article on shoulder imbalance… It is such a disgrace to the grand teachers of 2000 years ago that people are money making by creating fear around a practice that is pure and simple. Yoga is all to [sic] often nowadays taught as some fancy movement practice without the basic foundations.”

 

There is a type of logical fallacy called a straw man argument which involves “giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent” and another called a red herring which is defined as “something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue”. These logical fallacies can be seen in the comments above. Instead of confronting the actual argument I made about yoga’s strength imbalance, these commenters brought in irrelevant information about a completely different topic, thereby distracting attention away from the important issue at hand.

Although I didn’t set out to have a debate about the true meaning of “traditional yoga” when I wrote my article, I’ll offer my perspective on that topic now that the issue has been raised.

Put simply, no one owns the definition of traditional yoga. A “tradition” is in fact always created and re-created as it is passed along from generation to generation. Additionally, it is highly doubtful that most of what we call “yoga” today closely resembles the practices of the distant past. For centuries, there has been a dialog between the East and the West and a mutual influencing of philosophies and practices in both science and spirituality.

The truth is that modern postural yoga dates back only about 100 years or so to the time that T. Krishnamacharya began teaching his blend of hatha yoga, Western gymnastics, and wrestling exercises in Mysore, India. For more on these topics, see Mark Singleton’s book Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice, Sinister Yogis by David Gordon White (whom I was lucky enough to study under for my Religious Studies degree from UC Santa Barbara!), and First There is a Mountain: A Yoga Romance by Elizabeth Kadetsky, who actually spoke on this topic at a reading that I hosted at my yoga store, Drishti, back in 2003.

In general, when people attempt to make claims to tradition, they are trying to assert their authority over others on the basis of their connection to what is “authentic”. But assertions of one yoga being more “traditional” than another are pointless and unhelpful because tradition will always be a matter of mere opinion.

For my part, the reason I used “traditional yoga” in the title of my article on strength imbalance was to differentiate the type of modern postural yoga I was discussing from other “hybrid” forms of yoga that are popular today like yoga with weights, etc.

 

PULLING MOVEMENTS IN YOGA?

The second disagreement with my article was more anatomical in nature. In the article, I explained that yoga consists of an abundance of movements in which we strengthen our shoulders by pushing our body away from the floor (think plank pose, chaturanga, handstand, crow pose, etc.) and no corresponding pulling movements which strengthen our shoulders in the opposite way. Therefore, if yoga is the only form of “exercise” that we do, we will naturally create a non-optimal strength imbalance in our shoulders.

It is tempting to believe that our yoga practice provides everything we need for perfect balance in our body. I understand that this, combined with a lack of a substantial anatomy education, is why so many people were quick to disagree with my article. Here are a few comments which encapsulated the defensive attitude that many held about their practice:

“It’s amazing how you invent this yoga ‘problem’ by ignoring all readily available fact.”
“Totally disagree. True Hatha Yoga, properly taught, is designed to perfectly balance the body, so that it can sit comfortably for meditation, without a hint of discomfort. A properly designed Hatha Yoga sequence given by a Master Teacher will correct all postural imbalance and create perfect alignment allowing the pranic energies to flow.”
If you are participating in classes in which you do not experience perfect balancing of the shoulder girdle, then you are most likely participating in classes with unqualified instructors who cannot possibly represent Hatha Yoga correctly.”

 

Other commenters expressed their disagreement by pointing out ways they believe we do “pull” in our yoga practice to counterbalance all of the pushing. Here is a list of the “pulling” yoga movements that were cited by various readers in an attempt to disprove my argument:

-uttanasana (standing forward fold) “when we pull up on the toes”
-prasarita padottanasana (standing straddle forward fold) “when we drag our hands back toward our feet to deepen the fold”
-binding the toe in trikonasana (triangle pose) and lifting up
-uttitha hasta padangusthasana (standing big toe pose) “drawing the toes back”
-paschimottanasana “drawing the toes back”
-any pose with reverse prayer
-binding the arms around the back
-upward facing dog
-cobra (bhujangasana)
-bow pose (dhanurasana)
-dancer pose (natarajasana)
-the transition from chaturanga to upward facing dog
-“forward folds with big toe holds in all its forms”
-sirsasana (headstand)
-forearm balance (pincha mayurasana)
-tadasana (mountain pose)
-happy baby pose
-pulling your knee in toward your chest
-plank pose
-“a half lotus bind can provide a pulling or lifting action in the arm”
-flowing from down dog to plank to chaturanga to up dog

    -**note: several of these examples do not involve any pulling at all

 

This list of movements put forth by readers demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the body is actually doing in yoga and the physical requirements to achieve a strength balance in the shoulders. Unfortunately, not a single movement in this long list contributes in a significant way to balancing out all of the pushing we do in yoga. Yoga’s pushing movements involve pushing the weight of the body away from the floor; in order to counterbalance that, we need to pull the weight of the body toward something - not simply tug on our big toe or pull our knee toward our chest. Although I do think it’s quite amusing to picture someone attempting to pull on their big toe with the same amount of force they use when pushing their whole body away from the floor in crow pose (a classic pushing movement). They might end up with a very unhappy big toe, but they won’t be counterbalancing yoga’s pushing asanas.

Movements which successfully strengthen our shoulders in a pulling way involve the use of an object that we can pull against like a weight, a bar, or a resistance band. This is why I suggested hanging, pull-ups, seated rowing, and rock climbing in Part 2 of my article as some ideal complementary activities to a yoga practice.


THE LIVING TRADITION OF YOGA

In summary, the strength imbalance inherent in yoga is not a threat or something yogis should feel they must defend against. It is a simple anatomical fact. If we resort to unfounded beliefs and “magical thinking” (to borrow a great phrase from my yoga teacher friend Ariana Rabinovitch) to defend the mistaken idea that yoga is perfectly-balanced, we pose more of a threat to the integrity of the practice than simply learning from the new ideas that anatomy has to offer. The truth is that there is no one single activity that could possibly offer everything that one needs on a spiritual, emotional, energetic, and physical level. In my own experience, the practice of yoga has led me away from the desire for easy answers and dogmatic thinking in favor of a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the human body. Let’s continue to evolve the living tradition that is yoga by embracing the wisdom that anatomy and movement science have to offer.

A Biomechanics-Informed Response to Yoga Journal: We Do Not Need to Tuck Our Tail In Every Yoga Pose

A Yoga Journal article entitled “Alignment Cues Decoded: ‘Soften Your Front Ribs’” by YogaWorks teacher Alexandria Crow came through my Facebook feed yesterday and I decided to write a response to it. As you might know, I am very interested in seeing our wonderful yoga world update its traditional alignment cuing with the intelligence of biomechanics and modern movement science. I've found that the yoga community can be a surprisngly insular environment in which aspiring yoga teachers learn asana alignment from other yoga teachers who learned their alignment from teachers before them, etc., and at no point in this handing down of information do yogis tend to step outside of the tradition of yoga to learn about anatomy and biomechanics from objective movement professionals who base their teachings in the science of the body.

So when I saw this article come through my feed, I was excited to read it because I was hopeful that it would contribute some new and interesting information to the greater yoga alignment dialog. The magazine Yoga Journal and the large yoga studio chain YogaWorks are both very established entities in the yoga world, so the articles they publish about yoga alignment are considered authoritative by many yogis.

But as I made my way through the article I became progressively disheartened because rather than introduce new and intriguing alignment insights, I found instead a reiteration of some standard old-school yoga cues that biomechanics has long ago proven to be unhelpful and which many movement professionals retired from their teaching years ago.

 

 

A SUMMARY OF THE YOGA JOURNAL ARTICLE

If you don’t have time to read the original article, I’ll give you a summary. The gist of “Alignment Cues Decoded: ‘Soften Your Front Ribs’” is that most people tend to overarch in their lumbar spine/low back area, which results in a forward jutting of their rib cage. In order to fix this misalignment, yoga teachers instruct their students to “soften your front ribs”, but what they really should be cueing (according to the article) is “pull the front of your pelvis up, by lifting your hip points and dropping your tailbone until your lower back is in a natural - not overly arched - curve.” Here's more of an excerpt:
 

“The ribcage puffing forward is what most teachers’ eyes see first, so they say, ‘soften your front ribs’ in an attempt to get students to drop the front of the ribcage toward the pelvis. But the change actually comes from the front of the pelvis, the hips. To fix overarched lower backs and pointy, puffy lower ribs, students have to posteriorly tilt their pelvis at the hip joint bringing their pelvis and lower back into neutral alignment. That reduces the lower back’s arch and shortens the front body, dropping the ribs down.”


Does that make sense? In order to fix the common issue of jutting-forward ribs, yogis need to tuck their pelves. Alexandria’s advice is well-intentioned and is certainly a commonly-held belief in the yoga world, but this perspective has been outdated by modern movement science for years now.

Here is the biomechanics to explain why tucking our pelvis does not fix our ribs-forward issue. Alexandria implies in her article that most people have a forward-tilted pelvis (also called an anterior pelvic tilt), which needs to be brought back to neutral with a posterior tilt, or tuck. But the anatomical truth is that the overwhelming majority of us present with pelves which are actually tucked under (also called posteriorly-tilted), which is the opposite of forward-tilted. We sit in so many chairs with rounded spines and tucked-under hips for the majority of our time that our body can’t help but adapt to this shape.

(As a side note, I must point out that no postural rules apply to everyone and there are of course some people who don’t have chronically tucked pelves. But when we’re discussing general yoga cues, we’re talking about common movement patterns and postural imbalances that apply to the majority of the students we tend to see. We’re trying to be as helpful as we can teaching in a group class setting.)

But then why would Alexandria and so many other yoga teachers and yoga teacher training programs like the ones at YogaWorks teach that most people have forward-tilted pelves that need tucking? Great question - I’m so glad you asked! It’s because in addition to having a tucked pelvis, most people also present with a forward translation of their rib cage, also called rib thrust or rib shear.

Here's me with my ribs forward - do you see that my lumbar curve looks exaggerated here?

Here's me with my ribs forward - do you see that my lumbar curve looks exaggerated here?

This is the same image, but with a rib cage overlayed because rib cages are cool. :)

This is the same image, but with a rib cage overlayed because rib cages are cool. :)

When one’s rib cage has moved forward, it creates the overly-arched spine that Alexandria correctly sees in her students, but the mistake that too many yoga teachers make is in assuming that this excessive arch (also called hyperlordosis) is coming from below - from of the pelvis. Yes it’s true, as Alexandria points out in her article, that when your pelvis moves, your lumbar spine moves along with it. But it’s also true that when your rib cage moves, your lumbar spine moves too. The hyperlordosis that we all-too-often see in our students isn’t the result of a pelvis that is anteriorly-tilted from below - it’s the result of a rib cage that has sheared forward from above. The fix is therefore not to tuck your pelvis under, or to do any of these other cues that the YJ article suggest that mean the same thing, like:

-pull the front of your pelvis up
-lift your hip points
-drop your tailbone

I repeat, the fix is not to tuck the pelvis. Tucking the pelvis when we're already tucked leads to major body imbalances that we don't need to delve into right now - but it's not what we want to be doing. The correct fix is to return the rib cage to neutral, which you could certainly cue as “soften your front ribs” (but there are many other ways to convey this same action).

As I wrote about in my Core Strength Fiction & Facts article, it’s time to retire the indiscriminate use of the “tuck your tail” cue. Yes, there are specific times when we do want to work a posterior tilt of our pelvis - absolutely! But as yoga teachers who integrate anatomy and body intelligence into our teaching, it’s our responsibility to learn when these specific times are and to use this cue only at those times. In the YJ article, we are recommended to tuck our pelvis in all of these poses:

-tadasana (mountain pose)
-utkatasana (chair pose)
-adho mukha svanasana (down dog)
-adho mukha vrksasana (handstand)
-high crescent lunge
-warrior 1
-warrior 2
-trikonasana (triangle pose)
-”and so many more!”

However, the only poses from that long list in which most of us would be well-advised to work a tuck of our pelvis are high crescent lunge and warrior 1 - and that’s it!
 

IN CONCLUSION...

I feel thankful to have realized at a certain point in my yoga path that I had only learned about the body from people within the yoga tradition, and that it might be a good idea to seek some broader, more objective knowledge from movement professionals from outside the yoga world as well. The knowledge I’ve gained (and continue to gain!) from years of studying have given me a profoundly different perspective on the way that yoga approaches the body. Armed with these new understandings, I’m actively working toward helping yogis understand biomechanical alignment and how we can apply this modern-day movement science to our yoga practice to keep our beloved tradition of yoga evolving and current.

I understand that traditions don’t change overnight and that people tend to have ingrained notions about the way the body moves or which alignment cues are optimal that can be challenging to dislodge. But one great first step toward embracing positive change is to not accept at face value something that was written in an article just because the article was published in an established entity like Yoga Journal. Yoga Journal is not the authority on how the body moves- biomechanics and science are the authority.


Related Post: Pelvic-Tucking and Lumbar Flexion: Movements We Shouldn't Be Doing in Yoga?

Related Post: Common Movement Blind Spot #1: The Rib Cage and Pelvis Connection