Howdy folks,

A couple of weeks ago I read an article in the Sunday Times magazine on core
strengthening. It was a typical article about how the scientifically tested
assumptions of the 90's, on which large chunks of current physical training
ideas were built, are now being questioned. Specifically, the old wisdom is
that developing the transverse abdominus muscle (the deepest ab muscle) is
the key to strengthening the core and staving off lower back pain. This is
done basically by pulling in your stomach while doing crunches and other
exercises. The new wisdom seems to be that this is a horrible idea, and
that not only will pulling in your abs during exercises ruin your lower
back, it will also increase the likelihood that your grandchildren will be
allergic to peanut butter.

Alright, I made that last part up. But the question is, who is right?
Naturally we would say the newer wisdom, except that's what we would have
said about the older wisdom when it was the newer wisdom. It will only be a
matter of time before this newer wisdom becomes older wisdom to some other
wisdom. We all know the cycle.

I'm not an expert on these things, but my sense is that a) they are both
right, and b) neither one of them produced any new wisdom. In my
experience, after several years of yoga classes with some good teachers, I
finally got started getting the hang (I think) of what they called the
"kidney loop". This does involve pulling in the abs, but there are
different ways of pulling in your abs. In my version I've got a lot of
energy in my legs pushing down through the floor, and I visualize my lower
spine being pulled taut from both ends like a rope. I don't know exactly
what all this activates, but it feels great, opens up my lower back, and I
have a hard time believing it's doing anything but a lot of good. On the
other hand, I can also pull in my abs in a way that does the opposite,
tightening everything up, and compressing the vertebrae. I have no trouble
believing that could cause problems.

I have no doubt that there have been countless people over thousands of
years who understood all of this. But somewhere in the path of scientific
communication something gets lost. A study zooms in on a detail, and a
subtle, sophisticated process somehow becomes "pull in your stomach and
build up your transverse abdominus". And then a new study looks at a if
from a different angle and says, "wait a minute..."

The big point is this: science is a small digital picture with a million
pixels per square inch. It is a tiny, amazingly clear detail of the giant,
fuzzy impressionist painting of intuition. The whole truth is the same
giant painting, but with infinite pixels per square inch. The truth is too
big to take in fully in any real detail, and so science jumps from piece to
fascinating piece, but often forgets that it is only a small part of the
picture, and can only ever be a small part of the picture. I don't want to
suggest that intuition is more correct that scientific, empirical evidence;
I assume they are both equal and need each other to balance out. But I do
think the culture often has a giant paw resting on the scientific side of
the scale. So in cases like this my suggestion is, instead of jumping from
detail to detail, pan out for a while. Take in the big picture, fuzzy as it
may be. Make sure you feel a little lost before zooming back in.

Here's a link to that article if you are interested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21FOB-physed-t.html

Have a good month.
cam