Movement Optimism

You are either an optimist or a pessimist. Black-and-white, binary, easy to keep track of.

Well…, kind of…, sometimes…, maybe…?

I’m very pessimistic that the weather on the Norwegian West Coast will get much “better,” but very optimistic that, with the right training, I can still be as strong as I ever was, now that I am over 40 years of age. So, apparently, being optimistic or pessimistic depends on the domain and subject at hand. Heck, maybe these concepts live on a continuum ranging from more optimistic to more pessimistic and back again.

IYKYK; Norwegians get their hopes up

Would the same logic apply to being convinced that somebody is fragile, robust, or anti-fragile? Would the same logic apply to being convinced that you are at ease or at dis-ease (get it? Disease…)

Would the same logic apply to being convinced that there is a “wrong”, “bad”, or “poor” way to move, and a “good” or “better” way of moving?

Greg Lehman wrote an interesting blog piece about this, which hits the nail on the head. He opposes the “movement optimists” versus the more biomechanical thinkers. “They (biomechanical thinkers) suggest that there is an ideal way to move with corresponding ideal postures, muscle activation profiles, joint stiffness, etc. Deviations from these postures/movement patterns are proposed to cause pain, injury, and even future “wear and tear”. It is very much a structural view of the human body that argues for proper alignment. It manifests itself in the “Movement Quality” approach to life. Arguing, for example, for trying to keep a neutral spine during lifting…” (I’ve paraphrased his words here a bit)

This is a great example of a truth filter, determining how you view the world around you! And as with any truth filter, if acting accordingly does not give you the outcomes you are after, it might be time to revise your truth filter. When do biomechanics matter, and how much? Is there such a thing as “wrong” movement?