Mobility, Stability, & Flexibility: Clarifying Our Concepts in Yoga

I'm more than excited about my newest article in Yoga International that just published this morning! We tend to use the words mobility, stability, and flexibility all the time in yoga, but what do these terms actually mean?

The information I write about in this piece changed my whole perspective on yoga and movement, and I think these concepts have the power to change our yoga community’s entire approach to asana if this message spreads. There is so much value in getting clear on our terms & definitions!

I’m very thankful for the positive feedback I’ve received so far on this piece - I hope you enjoy it if you check it out!

The Myth of Symmetry in Yoga

You know how we tend to assume that the body should look and feel the same on both sides - an ideal of symmetry? And that tadasana (mountain pose) is our neutral, symmetrical, optimal shape? Well, my newest article for Yoga InternationalThe Myth of Symmetry in Yoga, uses science to challenge these long-held assumptions that most of the yoga world holds dear.

"It's articles like this that help to keep asana teaching science-based and elevate our profession as yoga teachers." --From the comment section of the article!

Check it out here to update your perspective on the body, alignment, & yoga!

 
 

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!

**Related: Keeping Your Yoga Teaching Current Online Training

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:)

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.

**Related: Keeping Your Yoga Teaching Current Online Training

Can A Simple Sitting Test Predict Your Mortality? I Have My Doubts!

You may have heard about the Sitting-Rising Test for Mortality. This test is said to predict your mortality based on how well you perform the task of sitting down onto the floor and rising back up to standing. I’ve seen news articles and video segments about this test passed around an abundance of times on social media with headlines like “Simple Sitting Test Predicts How Long You’ll Live” and “The Exercise That Predicts Your DEATH”. (Scary!)

Now I am definitely a proponent of the importance of skill in functional movements like sitting and rising from the floor, and I teach yoga and movement with this as a guiding principle. But I was curious about the bold claims and dire warnings I was seeing associated with this sitting-rising test, and I also didn’t love the idea of someone scoring a point or two below perfect on the test and then worrying that certain death was nearly upon them. I decided to examine the original research study on the sitting-rising test to find out what the researchers actually did and what their results truly suggested. I discovered that the research does show that this test can be a helpful assessment tool for a small percentage of the population (namely elderly people), but that the study’s results have been largely misinterpreted by news articles and the health and fitness world in general.

 

WHAT IS THE SITTING-RISING TEST?

For those not familiar with the sitting-rising test, it’s very simple to perform. From standing, lower yourself into a seat on the floor and then rise back up again to standing, using the minimum amount of support that you can (i.e. try not to use your hands or knees to help you.) You’re awarded 5 points if you can sit down without support and 5 more points if you can stand without support for a total possible score of 10. For each hand, knee, or other form of support that you use on the way down and up, 1 point is deducted from your score.

According to the study, lower sitting-rising scores were associated with higher mortality among its subjects. This seems quite suggestive on the surface, but let’s examine a few details about the study that are often overlooked in news and media reports.

 

1) The title of the study, “Ability to sit and rise from the floor as a predictor of all-cause mortality”, is very easy to misinterpret. To most of us, the term “all-cause mortality” is foreboding and seems to suggest that if you score lower on the test, you have an increased risk of dying from all possible causes - i.e. cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. How worrisome indeed! But what this term truly means is that the researchers did not control for type of mortality in their study because they did not know how their subjects died. This is actually the exact opposite of the way that most readers would interpret the meaning of the title.

Because the study did not control for type of mortality, and because the sitting-rising test assesses musculoskeletal health qualities like balance and strength, the most likely explanation for the deaths reported was that they were from falls. Therefore a lower score on the sitting-rising test probably does not suggest that you might die sooner from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or a host of other frightening possibilities. A lower score instead probably simply suggests that you lack balance and strength skills, which indicates that you’re more likely to take a fall. We know that falls are an unfortunately common cause of death among older populations, which leads us right into the next point:
 

2) The majority of people who received low scores on the sitting-rising test were between the ages of 76-80. And the study itself also only looked at people between the ages of 51-80. This means that the sitting-rising test was most meaningful for elderly people (and again, this could be explained in large part because of the high incidence of falling as a cause of death among the elderly.) This also means that despite news reports that this “simple test predicts how long you’ll live”, if you are younger than 51 years of age, the results of this study do not actually apply to you.
 

3) The study showed no difference in mortality between those who scored an 8, 9, and a 10 on the test. This means that if you use one hand for support on the way down to your seat and one hand on the way back up (a score of 8), your mortality risk is no different from someone who uses no support at all and scores a perfect 10. This seems counterintuitive and is not the way the sitting-rising test is generally presented to us in the health and fitness world. We are usually told that using one or two hands and knees is significantly worse than using no hands or knees at all. But this is a misinterpretation of what the study found.
 

4) The magnitude of the effect becomes most worrisome at scores lower than 6 (using 5 or more hands and knees), and is largest with a score of 3 or less (7 or more hands and knees). And because the majority of people who received these low scores were elderly, the effect is really much more relevant for this age demographic (and is likely explained by falls.) This isn’t to say that this test is meaningless for people in their early 50’s. But in all likelihood, if a 51-year old has to use 7 or more hands and knees to lower to the floor and rise back up (just picture for a moment what that would like), this is probably indicative of obesity or some other fairly obvious health factor that is impeding their function and affecting their mortality that this study did not control for. (While the researchers did control for body mass index, this is not the same as controlling for obesity.)

 

In conclusion, I definitely believe there is value in learning to sit and stand with as little support as possible, and I do teach this skill in my yoga and movement classes. But unless better research comes out in the future, I would hesitate to suggest based on this study that people should assess their own mortality by using the “sitting-rising test”. I believe that doing so could cultivate unnecessary fear, stress, and discouragement in people who don’t score a perfect 10, and it could also encourage a false sense of security in people who do. This test appears to be statistically significant for elderly people only, and even then, the mortality likelihood predicted could be driven entirely by falls. The “sitting-rising” test is probably best utilized by medical doctors as a general screening tool for their patients in combination with other routine health assessments like measuring blood pressure and taking pulses.

Are Some Movements Inherently Bad?

We are often taught that there are ways the body can move that are inherently bad for us. We’re told that these movements will cause damage, “wear and tear”, or imbalance in the body, which will inevitably lead to pain and discomfort. Some examples of movements like these are cervical spine flexion (e.g. "text neck"), lumbar spine flexion, and many classic yoga alignment taboos like placing the foot directly on the knee in tree pose (vrksasana).

While this perspective is certainly well-meaning, it is missing some key insights about the body that recent science has revealed to us. Instead of asking whether a movement is good or bad, a more nuanced and helpful question is: are one’s tissues adapted to withstand the load of a particular movement? When we approach movement from this perspective, it becomes clear that there are no inherently bad movements - there are simply movements whose loads our bodies are not currently adapted to handle.

 


OUTDATED MODEL OF PAIN

One reason that the "bad movements" belief is unhelpful is that it is based on an outdated model of how pain works. If you read my recent article on The New Science of Pain in Yoga International, you may be familiar with the fact that the link between pain and actual tissue damage is often very weak. Recent studies have repeatedly shown that many people have real tissue damage in their bodies and no associated pain, and conversely, many people who experience chronic pain in their bodies have no associated tissue damage at all. Additionally, pain is not an input to the brain from the periphery of the body (i.e. from tissue damage), but an output from the brain that is meant to signal us to take some sort of protective action.

There are many more implications that the new science of pain has for today’s topic of “bad movements”, but for the sake of time I’m going to to leave this part of the discussion at that and encourage you to read my original article about pain if these ideas are new to you. (This paradigm shift is fascinating and important for us yoga and movement teachers to understand!)

 


DO OUR PARTS WEAR OUT LIKE THE TIRES ON A CAR?

The second main issue with the “bad movement” approach is that it is based on a model that views the body as similar to a car, or a machine. In this model, if we move or align our body in sub-optimal ways over time, certain body parts will wear out before others due to the accumulation of microdamage. Just like a car’s tires might wear out unevenly and need premature replacing if they aren’t aligned properly, our body’s joints (think knees, hips, spinal joints) can wear out if we move or align them poorly.

This idea makes great intuitive sense, but there is an important distinction between cars and human bodies that is missing from this perspective. Unlike a car or a machine, whose parts do mechanically wear out with time, our body consists of living, biological tissues which are constantly turning over and remodeling according to the demands they experience. For example, we all know that if we load our muscles and connective tissues with a weight-training program at the gym, they will respond by becoming stronger in order to handle these loads. Another way of saying this is that the tissues of our body adapt to the stresses placed on them (also known as Davis’ Law).


TEXT-NECK AND TISSUE ADAPTATION

  Text-neck is not an inherently damaging movement.

Text-neck is not an inherently damaging movement.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, this same principle of adaptation applies in the case of the traditionally-labelled bad movement of “text-neck”. We are often cautioned that our head weighs the approximate amount of a bowling ball, and for every inch forward that it creeps, our neck is burdened with 10 additional pounds of damaging weight, leading to inevitable pain and imbalance in this area. (I have warned my yoga students about the dangers of text neck myself in the past too - believe me!)

But such cautions are rooted in the model which views our body like a machine full of parts that will wear out and break down if poorly aligned. By contrast, the living, biological organism of our body is constantly adapting to the loads it experiences. Therefore, if you position your head slightly forward of your torso on a regular basis, the muscles, fascia, and connective tissue of your neck will naturally adapt to become stronger and better able to withstand this load.

Now it’s certainly the case that holding any position for a long period of time, be it text-neck or otherwise, is problematic. But simply flexing our neck forward to look down is a natural movement that our body is designed to do. As well-intentioned as the cautions against text-neck are, they are not truly science-based and can encourage unnecessary fear and worry around this movement (which, ironically, can contribute to pain!)

 


“BAD ALIGNMENT” IN TREE POSE

Yoga alignment rules are another realm where "bad movement" beliefs often come into play. One classic example is the instruction that nearly every yoga student has heard to never place the foot on the opposite knee in tree pose (vrksasana). The reasoning behind this alignment rule is that the laterally-oriented force that the foot applies can damage the knee joint. We are instead instructed to always place our foot either above the knee (on the thigh) or below the knee (on the shin).

This alignment taboo does make intuitive sense, but let’s use the lens of biomechanics to look a bit closer. First of all, as we discussed above, the tissues of the body adapt to the loads placed on them. Therefore, in theory, if someone were to practice tree pose with their foot on their knee frequently enough, the tissues of the knee should adapt and get stronger to handle that load.

Secondly, yoga teachers often cue their students to actively press the standing leg and tree leg foot into one another in this pose. If practiced this way, this action actually creates stability in the standing knee joint which should resist any pressure applied by the tree leg foot.

And lastly, tree pose can be practiced with the tree leg actively working to hold itself up, rather than passively leaning against the standing leg. (Picture the leg lifting itself, rotating, and placing the foot on the opposite leg all on its own, without the help of your hand, and then holding itself up there.) In this scenario, the tree leg’s foot would actually be placing no pressure on the standing knee at all.

Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the classic teaching that foot-on-knee placement in tree pose is inherently “bad alignment” is a questionable belief that probably does not apply to most bodies in this pose.

 


HEADSTAND (SIRSANA)

Another controversial asana in the yoga community is headstand (sirsana), a movement that many wonderful and well-meaning yoga teachers believe should never be practiced because our cervical spine is simply not designed to carry the full weight of our body in such a fashion.

It is absolutely the case that most Western bodies are not adapted to handle the loads that headstand places on their cervical spine. (This is why teaching full headstand to a group class is definitely not advisable!)

But if we look at headstand as a movement that applies certain loads to the body, and if we understand that the tissues of our body adapt to the loads they experience, we begin to realize that if someone were to intelligently and progressively load their cervical spine over time (and it would need to be slowly and over a lot of time!), it would be possible for their body to adapt to the loads of headstand. Sirsana would be a safe asana for this body to practice. It's therefore an oversimplification to state that headstand is an inherently bad movement. It would be more accurate to say that it is simply a movement which many bodies are not currently adapted to handle (but they could be trained with time!)

 

CONCLUSION

When we start thinking about movement in terms of load instead of inherently “good” or “bad”, we gain a more nuanced perspective on the body. It’s true that any movement with high enough loads can injure us, but low load positions that we frequent regularly are unlikely to be the source of damage and pain in our body because our tissues will respond by adapting to handle them. These realizations lead us away from viewing our body as an innately fragile structure that is vulnerable to damage from suboptimal forces, and instead as the strong, resilient, and adaptable organism that it truly is.

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