|
The LearningMethods Library
On Fitness
Extracts from a Conversation with David Gorman
Interviewed by Sean Carey, PhD
Reprinted from The Alexander Review, Vol.4, 1989
Copyright © 1995 David Gorman, all rights reserved world-wide
 Lire une traduction complète en Français
Sean Carey:
A lot of people nowadays are into fitness regimes of one sort or another. Clearly, people's
motivations in taking up an activity vary, but a fairly common one is the attempt to achieve a high
level of cardio-vascular fitness. Very often sport is seen as the perfect antidote to the sedentary
job. How do you see this fitting in with our work?
David Gorman:
Well, people are in jobs that they feel aren't very physical and which don't demand very much of
them other than their mind. And very often there's a fear factor in there somewhere: "I'm going
to have a heart attack or get a bad back unless I do something very active and get my heart rate up
and strengthen myself". Another element is that because of all this 'unfitness' they want to make
up for lost time quickly in their working out which leads them easily to the 'no pain, no gain'
syndrome: that if the activity isn't strenuous it's not building up any worthwhile strength and if it
isn't hurting it's not doing any good at all.
But the big question is: what are we trying to achieve by this so-called
'strengthening'? Obviously if someone is not working on changing their habits, all they end up
achieving by exercising their habit is to reinforce the vicious circle whereby they get stronger at
their habit. In other words, if they're pulling down and tightening in ordinary activities, they'll
just pull down and tighten that much more when they exercise. And even if they do achieve a higher
level of cardio-vascular fitness and they've gotten stronger at contracting, bracing and tightening
with weights or fitness machines—the type of activity that makes somebody hard and firm - then they
will actually need that cardio-vascular stamina in order for the heart to be able to push the blood
through those tightened and braced muscles. In fact, it's very revealing that often when someone like
that manages to achieve the sort of global release in a lesson that takes a lot of pressure off both
the contents of the torso and the musculature, their blood pressure can drop so radically that they'll
see black spots in front of their eyes, feel light-headed and maybe even pass out. They're no longer
so hard and tight and hence the blood can flow through rather than being forced through the veins and
arteries that had previously been squeezed in the muscles. It shows very directly how much the heart
had to work when someone is maintaining a strongly held musculature. Previous to this experience all
they may have felt was that exuberant and seductive exercise after-glow.
Sean Carey:
There are now signs that the more thoughtful writers of sporting literature are moving away
from the simple idea that cardio-vascular fitness equals health. The argument is clearly put in, say,
Dr. Kenneth Cooper's book Running Without Fear, (Bantam Books, 1986) which is an attempt to counter
the criticisms and the fears that accompanied the death of the USA's running guru Jim Fixx (author of
The Complete Book of Running, Random House, 1977) after a training run in 1984. He states very clearly
that people should not over-exert themselves, have regular medical check-ups and that is a myth that
the more we exercise, the healthier we are. And yet sensible though all the advice is, Cooper doesn't
really consider the fundamental thing—our use, except indirectly insofar as certain conditions like
heart-attacks often express gross mis-use of ourselves.
David Gorman:
Yes, it may be better that people don't strain themselves so much in whatever exercises they may
do, but with or without strain the brute fact is that without changing their use they haven't changed
the foundation, they're just practicing their habits with a little more strength and vigor. If they
haven't changed their use, they haven't changed any of the neuromuscular patterning built up over the
years from all their previous use. They're still deepening those neuromuscular connections, deepening
the established arrangement and organization of the muscles, the connective tissue and the joints and,
of course, deepening their familiarity and adaptation to the sensory side of their experience. The
territory we should be exploring is not so much: "How do I change this movement so I can do it
better?" but "How do I change the 'I' that is generating the movement?" The movement
will then, of necessity, change in accordance with how I change. In other words, a certain moderation
is probably a good thing, but you're quite right that without changing the foundations there's always
a flaw built into any system no matter how benevolent the consequences.
Sean Carey:
Still a lot of Alexander teachers go to the opposite extreme and actively discourage their
students from performing almost any activity whether it's running, rowing or weight-training.
Obviously that's problematic to people who say: "Well, what do I do instead? I want to be
involved in something". That seems to me to be a perfectly valid question.
David Gorman:
Clearly if someone loves doing something it's obviously to their advantage if they can do it with
good use. On the other hand, if they can't bring in good use and they still do it in spite of all
that, it's their choice and they must live with the consequences. But it's rarely as clear-cut as
this. Let me give you an example: I was giving lessons to a very keen oarsman. It soon became clear
that he wasn't making much progress with the Technique because of the sheer amount of time and effort
he was putting into rowing which had resulted in a massive pull-down the front and a bend in his back.
So I mentioned to him that he had two options. First, he gives up rowing for a while, learns the
Technique and later on sees if he can take it back to the rowing; second, he carries on rowing but for
the moment foregoes all the speed and effort and spends more time exploring how he is rowing. He
wisely chose the second course. I went to work with him at his rowing club on a rowing machine and
could observe him at first hand on the river. It was very productive and (not coincidently) his rowing
improved in speed and ease when he did take himself back to competition. But, ultimately, how we
worked was his choice. It's certainly not up to the teacher to make the choice. We can only say what
we ourselves might do which may or may not have any relevance for the student.
I think that often it's not a question of saying to people that this is the wrong sort
of activity and you shouldn't do it, but rather making a different emphasis and working with people in
such a way that helps them to develop a sensitivity to their use so that they are able to notice when
they're not using themselves well in whatever activity they happen to be doing at the time. If we as
teachers actually want people to develop an internal register and value-system for their use, then we
have to allow them to make experiments and discover what does and doesn't work for them. The more they
develop that register the more they'll be able to assess the value for themselves of any particular
activity at any particular place and time.
Sean Carey:
Yes, I take your point but it's precisely that internal register of use and mis-use that is
often omitted from even fairly sophisticated attempts to link particular disciplines with improvements
in co-ordination. For example, the anatomist Philip Tobias became interested in certain similarities
between ballet and karate. He writes:
"I managed to obtain the services, and indeed the enthusiastic co-operation of
the leading karate-ka in Johannesburg and of a group of ballet dancers. The groups I have worked
with enabled me to obtain a greater understanding of the movements of ballet and karate. They helped
me to comprehend that to achieve physical skill one must acquire poise. To acquire poise, one must
convert malposture to posture—by undoing the torque. One must de-rotate the body." (The
Tottering Biped, Committee in Postgraduate Medical Education, University of New South Wales, 1982:56)
Tobias seems to be suggesting that performing ballet or karate will of themselves—and
in a simple, mechanical way—allow an individual to achieve balance and poise. Now my experience of
several forms of karate is that it isn't that simple. Moreover, most karate is taught in a very stiff
and held sort of way. The idea of releasing and opening into movement is not widely practiced. In
fact, a few weeks ago I was talking to a chap who practices the Shotokan style of karate. He adopted
the very low stance that they employ and proceeded to demonstrate several different types of kicks and
punches. There was a tremendous amount of tension and effort in all of this, not least because he'd
been taught to pull his shoulders right back thus narrowing and shortening his torso and gripping his
legs.
David Gorman:
Well, I think it's possible to perform karate with good use but it's certainly not going to be
done by the person who assumes a position or shape by pulling his shoulders back. As you suggest,
there is nothing intrinsic to karate, ballet or t'ai chi that will by itself achieve poise or balance.
For that matter, there's nothing intrinsic to the Alexander Technique that will automatically do that
either. It's how we go about it that counts. However, I would agree with Tobias that to achieve skill
one does need 'poise' and a good functioning 'posture' otherwise there is always a flaw in the
foundation no matter what the activity. What we need to work at, whatever the method we use, is
finding how we interfere with our innate poise and then get out of the way. I have no doubt that
through almost any method or form one could potentially achieve a deep integration and harmony—look
at Zen and the Art of Archery—but of course one has only to look around to see how often it actually
does occur. While it is certainly possible in more form-oriented pursuits it seems to me that it is
precisely this territory of how to get at the malposture/posture, disturbance/poise, action/reaction
etc. which the Technique attempts to directly address, even though we do not always succeed either.
From this point of view, the Alexander Technique is a 'pre-technique' through which we gain the
foundation skill of coming out of poor use and sustaining better use so that we can take advantage of
the technique of our favourite activity whether it be ballet, karate, sport or just plain living.
There is another aspect to your question, though, concerning ballet which is a little
more problematic. Ballet emerged, after all, out of a very artificial, stylised court culture in
France. The first forms were cultivated to distance the courtiers from the natural, 'animal' side of
themselves and to make an art form of life! With such a historical background, it's difficult to
escape balletic values and assumptions. It's very different, therefore, from the more free-flowing
modern forms of western dance or for that matter, traditional Balinese or various African dance types.
In fact, the way in which people try to attain the ballet style takes us to the heart of the matter.
For the most part, the dancers are taught to operate from a fixed 'pull up' like an imaginary line
hauled right up through their middle until they identify with it as their badge of 'dancerness'. With
the hours and hours of practice they get very skilled at a controlled holding wherein the most
important thing is what it looks like. They are actively engaged, therefore, in ignoring their inner
sense of use and concentrate instead on manipulating their sense of shape from the point of view of
the visual impact.
Sean Carey:
So are you saying that ballet is so artificial and necessarily involves so much holding that
it's impossible for someone to do it with good use?
David Gorman:
I certainly wouldn't go that far because it's possible to work with ballet dancers in such a way
that they dispense with some of their tight holdings and forced controllings and open up and release
into movement. It just can be very difficult, that's all—often more difficult than, say, working
with someone involved in a modern form of dance that is more free form and explorative of flow and
integration. But, then again it depends upon the particular person. Some ballet dancers are a joy and
delight to work with. One can't escape that we are working with individuals no matter what they've
gotten themselves into.
Sean Carey:
One way out of this dilemma, of course, would be to advise the student that when they're doing
ballet they should just get on with it but that the rest of the time, in their ordinary life, they can
bring in the Technique.
David Gorman:
Well, all of us inevitably do that to some extent anyway. It's impossible to think about the
Technique all the time and, furthermore, the more complex the activity, the more difficult it is to
employ the Technique. This is why in a lesson you'd normally start with something relatively simple
like getting in and out of a chair, walking or picking something up, until people get an idea of the
tools they are using so that they can take their new skill into more complex activities. It's going to
be much easier for someone to be aware of their use and be able to change it when they're walking down
the street than, say, if they're up on a stage performing a violin solo where their living depends
upon it. They can't really stop and say: "Hang on a moment, I've just noticed my misuse. Give me
a second to work it all out... Okay, now I'm fine. Let's get back into the music".
But any artist has practice time and that's one place they can begin to bring the
Technique into their work. And if we as teachers can help them with that then so much the better. If a
student can spend at least part of their practice time—whether the activity be dance, music or the
martial arts—exploring their use rather than practicing their existing skills they'll be able to
bring the Technique into more and more of their lives including the more stressed real performance. On
the other hand, if they find that they can't bring their improved use successfully into the old
activity then, perhaps, they have to assess whether they want to express their new self in the old
medium. A dancer, for example, experiencing a greater level of integration and flowingness through the
Technique might well find themselves drifting towards a different form of dance. But that's something
they must decide for themselves in the light of their own experience.
Sean Carey:
Let me now turn to isometric exercise where, for example, someone puts their hands on either
side of a door frame and pushes really hard and yet nothing is moving? How do you assess this?
David Gorman:
I must say I'm not really a great fan of isometrics because to put the effort in pushing or
pulling against an unyielding resistance is almost always to engage in rampant shortening. It's
interesting when you think about it that most of our misuses are isometric contractions. We hold
ourselves in fixed positions contracting against our own resistance. Instead of you pushing or pulling
against the machine or doorframe, you're pushing or pulling against yourself. In fact, you are pulling
with one part of you against another pull from another part of you. This doesn't seem to do us much
good in our own use, I can't see that it's going to do us much more good doing it against a door. If
we can already use ourselves openly without shortening, then there are much better activities in which
to practice such a use than against immovable objects. However, having said that, let me re-iterate
that I think it really is someone's own choice what they do. My job is to help them discover the full
implication of what they're doing and how they're doing it so that they can make an informed choice.
Sean Carey:
Last time we spoke you told me you had some interesting thoughts on Nautilus machines.
David Gorman:
Ah, yes, it's easy for Alexander people to get elitist about aerobics, exercise and the like but
it's useful to realize that the equipment in gyms—Nautilus machines being one of the most common—present
wonderful opportunities for the exploration of our skill in the use of ourselves. In fact, there is an
opportunity in almost any activity or situation for bringing to bear these 'Alexander tools' if we are
willing to drop our prejudices and get down to it.
But to get back to working out on exercise machines... The nautilus machines consist of
a range of different apparatus, each designed to work on a specific area— one for the quadriceps,
one for the upper chest, one for the hamstrings, etc. The Nautilus name actually comes from a little
gearing mechanism shaped like a nautilus shell in the machine which ensures that though the weight you
are moving remains constant, the force needed to move it is larger in the middle range of movement
when the muscle is capable of more force and diminishes toward the end of the ranges when the muscle's
capability diminishes. They generally have a seat or bench to sit or lie on and you push or pull on
the handles or levers to lift the weights and work out the specific parts. The weight is variable
usually in 10 lb. units starting with zero or 10 pounds and going up toward a hundred pounds or more.
You get on the machine and do a cycle of repetitions at your chosen weight load, then move to the next
machine and do another cycle, and so on through the whole set of machines until you have 'worked out'
the whole body.
However, what most people actually do is over-exert themselves by loading up as much
weight as they can manage to move through the cycle of repetitions. With that amount of weight they
can't actually move it in a free and open way but only by bracing and tightening the rest of
themselves. It's easy to tell when a pupil has been to the gym the day before. They come in all
hardened, compacted and bound up in themselves from the pulling in on themselves. They think that
they're getting stronger and they are—they're getting stronger at compacting themselves and using
their energy against themselves in bracing and tightening. From our point of view this is obviously
not desirable even though it is a virtue in part of the gym-going culture to have that hard body.
However, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the machines. If you are willing to
change the way you use them you can learn a lot. The first step is to take off all the weight and just
add on the amount which still leaves you able to do the motion of that machine without any bracing or
stiffening. In my experience this will be no more than ten pounds in the beginning for most people.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the occasion to work with anyone in the gym enough times to see how far
they can go beyond that. In the times which I have helped someone, ten pounds has been sufficient for
a very good workout.
Let's take the example of the machine which works the pectoral region. You sit upright
and with your arms out to the side, forearms upwards you press in on the apparatus to bring your arms
in front of you then back again out to the sides and so on. Usually people bear down with all their
effort on the squeeze in to the front, typically holding their breath with the effort and then allow
the weight to slam them back out to the sides. People working with a trainer will often be told to
breathe out during the effort when the arms come together and breathe in when the arms come out to the
sides. This further reinforces the impression that the 'real work' is in the contraction of the
muscles frontward and the opening out is just to get ready for the next 'work out'. This is not how
the machines are designed and a good trainer will ensure that more equal attention is paid to each
direction, yet without care this bias will be reinforced.
But to get back to how to use the machine well. Take off most of the weight. Then the
real endeavour is to be able to allow the movements of the arms with the load of the weight without
having to tighten through your ribs, abdomen, lower back, shoulders or anywhere else. And without
having to interfere with your breathing or force it into a simplistic rhythm with the movement. Let it
find its own harmony, its own un-interfered with rhythm. Can you release onto the seat and use the
full range of the machine without squeezing in your chest in front or your shoulder blades in back?
Can you support the load during the movement with equal release in both directions of movement,
especially the opening-out movement where you must support the load yet still allow the muscles to
lengthen? Can you keep the release going with a slower or faster movement? All sorts of productive
playing around are possible...
What you will be practising is not bracing and shortening in the rest of you to work out
an area through contraction, but being able to remain free and open while doing an activity in spite
of its load. This is a very valuable skill and is quite usable outside the gym! In addition, what you
will find working in this way is that while you may initially think that 10 pounds is nothing, at the
end of those 10 repetitions you will have had as much of a workout as you ever did with 50 pounds. In
fact, more of a workout. Everyone I've worked with has said that they feel more of the rush of
'exercise' afterwards than they ever did with the heavy weights, and they have the delight of having
learned something constructive on top of it.
Working this way shifts the emphasis away from the work-out of the part to the use of
the whole during any specific activity. The particular machine and how it loads you is simply the
medium for the larger task of paying attention to how you use the rest of you. The idea behind it is
simple, but it's not easy to do in the average gym environment because you have to spend a lot more
time in order to be able to keep releasing throughout the repetitions. This is a good thing from the
point of view of the work-out since you then have more time in a released state during the movements.
But it is difficult for many people to take the necessary time if they feel the other gym fanatics are
waiting to get on the machine and snickering behind their hands: "Look at this wimp, he's only
pumping 10 pounds. Hurry up and let us real men get to work!"
~~~~~~~
There is a
small biography with some personal details about the author below.
Find this article helpful? Care to make a donation?
|
We hope you enjoyed reading this article and others on the
web-site and found them helpful.
If we have been able to help you, would you consider helping us?
We are doing our best to keep most of this material available for free. But, of course, we do have lots
of costs, so if you would like to help out, please consider making a donation in any amount you
feel appropriate. You can use any major credit card via our secure servers.
We do appreciate your generosity! |
|
About the Author
 David Gorman developed the LearningMethods work out
of over 30 years of research and teaching experiences. His background is in art and science and
a fascination with exploring human structure and function. In the mid-1970s he spent many nights
dissecting in the lab and drawing furiously. In 1980 he published a heavily illustrated 600-page
work on our human musculo-skeletal system called The Body Moveable (now in its 5th edition) and in 1966, a collection of
articles, Looking at Ourselves.
He happened upon the Alexander Technique in 1972 and was immediately intrigued
by its power for change; and has been teaching that work since 1980, becoming well-known worldwide
for his innovations to the work and notorious for challenging the orthodoxy of the profession.
He has been invited to teach all over the world in universities, conservatories and training colleges,
at conferences and symposia, and with performance groups and health professionals.
In 1982, his teaching was revolutionised by his discovery of a new model of
human organisation — Anatomy of Wholeness — with its
profound implications about our in-built natural tendency toward balance, ease and wholeness. He
extended these insights into a new way of training teachers of the Alexander Technique and from
1988 to 1997 in London, England he trained 45 teachers.
His experiences with his own students and in other training groups made it clear
that a huge part of our chronic problems lay not in the 'body' but in our consciousness and habitual
way of seeing things and how we misinterpret our daily experiences and then become caught in reaction
to these misunderstandings. At this point it also became apparent that his discoveries revealed
new premises which in turn implied new teaching methods, so David developed the LearningMethods
work to teach people how to apply their in-built intelligence and clarity of perception to their
daily experience in order to understand their problems, solve them and successfully navigate their
lives.
Since the beginning of this new work in 1997, David has trained a growing number
of LearningMethods Teachers, many of whom are now teaching the LM work in universities and conservatories,
and he is now planning a new Toronto-based modular training program
for LearningMethods, Anatomy of Wholeness and the Alexander Technique. He continues to
write more about the work, and give workshops to performers, teachers
and the public in North America, Europe, and Asia (see his teaching schedule),
as well as raising another young son.
DAVID GORMAN
E-mail:
Telephone: +1 416-519-5470
19 Stephen Drive, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada M8Y 3M7
|
Download for
If the article raises further
questions for you or you feel you'd like help from a qualified LearningMethods
teacher to solve this or other issues, you can arrange for a
