mytype1collagenis2tight

Hi Lindon, great questions and as always Kit has offered sage-like perspectives. This stuck out to me: For myself, as an additional anecdote, there’s a unique interaction effect of: ‘newness of stress’ x effort per session x general level of ‘freshness’ that training day x individual variation ^ That equation is certainly missing variables. But they’re the ones I’ve personally been able to denote are influential through training cycles on DOMS. For instance, if my general energy level is lower, it makes my perceived effort higher; but higher within that session’s ‘lower than best’ capacity. I don’t always get DOMS, but anecdotally, yes, if it’s new range for me or a new area, I’ll feel DOMS. But, in my opinion the “what does my body need right now?” is a better general guide for training sessions as one cycles through the exercises. I can’t emphasize this learning point for myself enough: make sure to change your exercises periodically. Develop a ‘meso-cycle’ mindset, no different than strength training protocols. This has been the major shift in my training that’s been golden. It helps to be honest with oneself: not getting wedded to the same routine, is this exercise harder than others? (well, then there’s probably more opportunity in those stuck spots). One last comment about the psychological effects of DOMS, for consideration. Ex. I’ve been doing a Sunday Pancake routine. Without fail, my soreness in the inner thighs is notable on Tue. Sunday is my most rested and relaxed day: second day off from work, generally better sleep, more leisure time with family reconnecting/recovering. I get my best performance that day. Come Tuesday, if I’ve been diligent in my AM pre-work limbering routine, the DOMS are cut in half. If not, and I’ve slept poorly, stressed from work, etc etc, well... I’m tense all over including my pancake muscles. Very curious to hear others perspectives.

After experimenting with several of the Master the Pancake limbers and exercises today, the half-pancake helped me focus on a discomforting pull sensation right above, across and past the knee on the medial tibia. Specifically, when I had the thigh neutral. Wasn’t alarming, but notable. Playing with the position, the ‘pull’ would disappear with slight thigh external rotation, or time. Looking at my anatomy book, there are several muscles that have their tendon insertion at the superior-medial tibia spot: gracilis, sartorius, semitendinosis (which Netter’s lumps into “PES anserinus” whatever that means to anatomists). Also many hamstrings and deeper muscles have tendon convergence at that superior-medial tibia location more generally. Anyways, just that I could avoid the uncomfortable pulling sensation with slight thigh eternal rotation makes me think it’s possibly due to the sartorius shortening (and therefore maybe relieving tension on the tibia tendon insertion). ^ the above may all be me just overthinking, but a really cool effect nonetheless

Was reading Stretching and Flexibility and noted the discussion re: externally rotating the femur below a certain angle to prevent femoral head on pelvis limitations in range. By focusing on that cue I could feel a difference in my pancake depth today. Having a salient target to stretch towards appears to make a difference too. Also have been reorienting my core workouts towards areas of developmental need/potential. These include doing dead bug variations instead of rectus abdominis-heavy hollow holds. The dead bug variations just hit more of the core muscles that are under developed for me (like transverse abdominis). Once I have a sense these are sufficiently improved, will move onto ab wheel variations. Putting core extension and oblique movements on maintenance.

I have not. Excellent idea, will test this over the weekend. Thank you. I’ve learned to brush my teeth with the L hand (actually to alternate hands), as the dentist tells me, to hit the teeth at different angles. It really didn’t take more than a couple brushings for it to be natural. Another good tip!

Maybe I should mouse with my left hand haha: bring balance to the Force

Hey no pressure from me! Actually was more curious what you thought of the program if you were working it. They’ve put together a great program. I’ve managed to get by doing 2 workouts a week, max. The glacial pace and low volume I’ve kept to help it truly feel like ‘playing/skill’ time and not outright exercise. I may have a huge banana back handstand still, but it’s loads of fun nonetheless to feel more confident upside-down. Hope you pick it back up! I bet you have excellent shoulder flexion and could get a stacked handstand relatively quickly.

(Hilarious? Sad?) observation this AM: my right upper trap is larger than my left (bigger hump when looking face-on in the mirror). First thought that came to mind was “this is because I spend 45-50 hours a week at work moving and clicking a mouse with my right arm lifted.” Going to have to: 1) work that left trap more 2) work b/l scapular depression/pushing exercises more (hello L-sits!) 3) put my mouse pad below my chest and see if my wrist can tolerate it

Hey Nathan, I started Push back in June. Haha I can relate: I did the Beginner’s template for 2.5 mesocycles. I moved on to the Strong-Lacking Flexibility template, started with half rep/set scheme and working my way up slowly. Are you still doing the program? Personally, I’ve found it to be fun to ‘catch’ a handstand for a couple seconds, enjoying those moments of inertia.

2020 recap on my practices. The pandemic proved to have some positives, which I’m going to focus on in this post. Chief among them was a lot of time to reflect and reset the course and priorities of my practice. - larger focus on meso-cycling now that I’ve gone through many of the solo stretches over the last few years. Before, I worried that leaving a stretch behind would mean I’d lose ‘progress.’ Well, that hasn’t really proven true. Limbering the stretch keeps my achieved-range open more ‘readily.’ Even without touching a stretch for months at a time (ex. tailor pose), my prior limit range would not only come back (nearly) immediately, but the range would open up ‘quicker.’ The familiarity with exploring end range, I know, is a huge reason for this, in addition to downstream effects of focusing on collateral areas. - more general movement throughout the day. This starts with awakening movements to rouse my legs, torso and arms. During business hours, I’m in front of a computer; the positive of this proves to be that the last thing I want to do is more wasted time on the computer. However, at night, I needed something to do after the kids went down to sleep. So, I’ve been cycling between articulation practices (spine, ribs, wrists), breathing exercises, and stretching (that stretching for meditation video Kit has is my go-to when I can’t decide what to stretch; it’s such a good all around tour of ‘the ST hits’). - once/week focus on shoulders. It has been a slow ride. This is expected; as literally I have spent years doing computer work and climbing (both emphasizing internal rotation and tight shoulder flexion). Strengthening the external rotators, stretching the lats. Was doing a hanging practice, but haven’t replaced my hangboard on the wall since we did renovation (gotta get on that...). Also, finally convinced my wife to help with the parter stick pec stretch (now to convince her I want to hold the stretch for 5 minutes; haha she wants to stop after 30-60 seconds but that’s right when I’m getting deeper into the stretch). - once/week focus on pike/pancake. Going very well since including calf stretching and hip flexor strengthening. Bent leg pike has been getting deeper. - dividing strength training away from climbing. I would try to combine these before, but just doesn’t work for me. I need substantial time between these practices. Right now, it’s forced down time (gyms are closed, rainy season so can’t climb outdoors). Substituting a bit more strength work since I can’t climb, but it’s boring only to do strength work without translating it to a practice I enjoy. This was an important revelation to me: I really find bodyweight training boring if I can’t translate the strength to something fun*. *So in that vein, I’ve been doing a balance walking exercise on the backs of benches. Such a great, ‘active parent’ practice. Surprisingly fun, excites my kids (and they do it with me), and benches are everywhere. The benches have unique challenges: each has its own character of railing/material/slope/stickiness. This naturally translates to rails and felled tree trunks (on hikes) when I’m very “on.” Also utilizes my stabilizers, getting me to connect my feet to and through my trunk. It’s a direct line from ST practice focus on feeling the body and making adjustments —> fun challenging activity I can do anywhere —> improves my climbing footwork and core tension. - probably would be an unpopular opinion to many who are suffering during this pandemic, but I have a mixed sense about the forced lock down ending. Of course I recognize it must end and should; too many suffering medically, socially/psychologically and economically. However, I also bemoan the idea of having too many distracting options when the world opens back up. The pandemic was a golden opportunity to refocus on self-discovery in the moment, consistently. My goal moving forward is to not lose my way because of modern distractions.

Been quite a while since I posted. It seems this stage in my pancake range is a nice check point. Comparing to photos from 2017 where I couldn’t even begin to roll my hips over, I’m enjoying quite the improvement. The key for me so far has been focusing simultaneously on calf stretches and hip flexor strength. N.B. The black tuft of fur under me is our cat, doing her obligatory curiosity check-in.

I believe I had heard that Reich had some sort of oblique views about sexuality. Thanks for this, very interesting indeed. Are there any Reich books in particular you’d recommend that discussed the character armor concept? Yes I’m personally finding that doing it from both angles, working the soma and receiving psychotherapy has had a symbiotic effect. It’s a wonderful combination and when I’m consistent they compliment one another so very well.

Well I suppose this is where Freud and Reich would have some fundamental disagreements. The whole history of psychoanalysis is the story of others building off of and changing Freud’s original formulations, so your observation is interesting but not surprising. In Freud’s defense, he might simply counter that violence beget from ‘over-repressed’ impulses would equate to displacement (a defense mechanism). Freud explicitly cites the Thanatos pole (aggressive instinct) as being a primary drive. And on that point, it is worth noting: the impulse to act violently as different from actual violent behavior. This is a very common (possibly epidemically so) mistake, to fuse the two concepts when speaking about them. Freud was talking about impulses (instincts) not violence (behavior), in my original point, per se. Anyways, I am not saying Freud was necessarily right, either (quoted below). I was simply making observations and chewing on intellectualized gum. This brings us back to Berman; that Freud was operating under the Hobbesian spell when formulating his psychoanalytic theory. Probably Reich was too, but possibly in a different way. I simply am not well read enough on Reich to make any comment there (guess it’s time to read Berman’s Coming to Our Senses).

Yeah this was written anonymously after Sex at Dawn came out; haven't read it though. The author of Sex at Dawn had some choice words about the rebuttal book on his podcast (as you could expect). In fairness, (re: Civilization and Its Discontents) I have specific training in the mental health field and is my day-to-day job, so the concepts are already very familiar to me. I could definitely see it being jargon-y to others. I finished the book last night and I maintain that it has its problems; yet, it also has many more brilliant insights. One insight I didn't already mention (and the books 'coda') was Freud's synthesis herein: civilization begets the repression of instinctual impulses via a punitive super-ego (aka 'conscience,' 'guilt/shame' or 'self-punishment'). He makes a case for a tension arc between an impulse, assumed guilt (even when no bad act has been done but was 'thought') and neurotic illness (depression, anxiety, obsessions, etc.). Basically our instinctual impulses are constantly denied in an increasingly self-regulated manner as we grow-up, in a civilization that demands their repression for external safety. However, this causes internal suffering. In essence, he argues, that as long as we have civilization we will have anxiety and neurotic illness. A social utopia died the moment we decided to repress instincts via civilization, and no form of social program or government will make these issues disappear (cue: Berman). Freud argues the human disposition is too inclined towards the libido (Eros) and the death/aggressive (Thanatos) instincts to be completely 'healthily' regulated. Freud even goes so far as to say the entire realm of Ethics is predicated on the same principles of the repression of instinctual impulses; he spends a lot of time tearing apart the Golden Rule, for instance. Many have problems with Freud's formulation of the libido/aggressive instinct poles and their configuration into the psyche. Freud, however, seems to be a Hobbesian too, believing uncivilized man was more prone to frank violence. This is where I think his theory has some classic faults. The Chris Ryan and Berman analysis of low HG violence statistics suggest the world isn't really any less violent in the modern era, probably more so when you account for mass warfare. Berman appears not only right, but balanced in taking the good from Freud's work while showing how Freud's theory was still bound by the culture of civilization he grew up in (believing in the Hobbesian narrative of violent HG). Anyhow, it's classic late-period Freud. He does have wonderful prose, if one isn't being bogged down with jargon. I enjoyed it. Interesting stuff and I'll be chewing on it for a while. Great discussion @Naldaramjo, I really enjoy this back and forth!

I quite readily agree with this perspective. It may be one of the most egotistically-based biases around. It’s the Hobbesian ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short’ presumption of HG life and our current “best ever” positioning in contrast. There is a bevy of “counter-cultural” counterpoints to Hobbes, though: Berman’s anthropological work, psychology research and primate research. I highly recommend (as you’ve so kindly gifted me the Berman recommendation) reading Sex At Dawn by Christopher Ryan. It considers bonobos, the forgotten ‘other’ closest primate relative, in this general narrative of, shall we call it, ‘dys-civilization?’ Side note: Now that I’m reading through Civilization and Its Discontents (which has some problems though mostly an excellent read), Freud sees it in almost complete opposition to Pinker. From pg. 75, Freud cites a “process of civilization” - 1) instinct renunciation then through repetition of #1 —> 2) character ‘formation’ and 3) sublimation vs. neurosis (note; sublimation is functional in society, though unnecessary as a ‘healthy’ defense outside of society). Freud may not have it right, though at least Freud considers out loud that he may be incorrect. Important that our authorities are more openly honest about their ambivalence (ahem, more scientific too especially in social sciences).

I have not; in fact, you're the first person to put me onto Berman. I look forward to reading these as well. More a discretionary warning against Pinker's "data" mining and showmanship: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-dawn/201103/steven-pinkers-stinker-the-origins-war. I haven't read Blank Slate but my memory of many of Pinker's past articles appeared to be too heavily emphasized on behaviorism, genetic determinism, a grandiose sense of 'having it right' and a writing style that was too disorganized. I remember his articles jumping from topic to topic, presuming that the reader understood the connections he was making, yet highly correlating ideas that weren't de facto related. Temperament is a not-uncontroversial topic and not 'known' in any agreeable manner; much less operationally defined and elucidated (beyond blandly stating a person has in-born tendencies towards being "easy, difficult or slow-to-warm-up," whatever that all means). I can't see how Pinker would explain, convincingly, how evaluating these three categories of subjective behavioral traits would be free from undue influence (i.e. the observer's own confirmation biases (aka projections)). Alternatively and more to your suspicion, is the issue of Attachment research (which Berman references in Wandering God). There is a very clear HIGH effect of trans-generational attachment styles (secure vs the insecure subtypes) from parents onto children. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; developed by Mary Main at Berkeley) showed a 75% predictive value of a parent repeating their own childhood attachment configurations onto their own infants. The AAI has parents relating stories about their experiences with their own parents from childhood. The interviewed-parents' attachment style was determined via patterns in the speech/storytelling of the parent-subject; this was regardless of the parent's expressed belief about how their own parents treated them when they themselves were kids. Then, separately evaluating the infants of the AAI parent-subjects in the Strange Situation, the patterns of secure vs insecure attachment were predictable by 75% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7777645). This predictability was even demonstrated by applying the AAI before the infant was born and then assessing the Strange Situation post-partum (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1131831?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). Further, the effect is noted trans-culturally. Lastly, a corollary to personality/temperament 'truisms.' A very recent article in the American Journal of Psychiatry (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30845820) showed that Adverse Childhood Events ("ACEs") were more predictive of the development of depression than any genetic marker or combination of markers (which, by the way, after meta-analyses were performed, equated with zero predictability for genetic markers). The parallels to 'personality/temperament' are similar for depression; good luck operationally defining and then rigorously, scientifically studying a very context-dependent subjective phenomenological experience. Personality and temperament, if nothing else, are likely just inter-subjectively determined phenomenological experiences of a person generally over time.