Sports, Science And A 'Mad' Australian Actor!
When an investigation comes to be made, it will be found that every single thing we are doing in the work (Alexander Technique) is exactly what is being done in nature where the conditions are right, the difference being that we are learning to do it consciously. F.M. Alexander If we are going to devote time and money to learning something new, we need to know if it is going to make a difference. Whilst no teacher can make a guarantee that you would be able to learn The Alexander Technique, this applies to learning any new skill, the principles and practice have been the subject of many scientific studies. The answer to the question, does it work, is yes, but only if you apply it!
Do We Need Proof?Charles Pierce, an American philosopher, defined the four ways we come to ‘know’ a fact. The first is that of tenacity where we hold onto an idea or viewpoint because through our own experience we know it to be true. As the naming of the method implies we will continue to cling to this viewpoint even when presented with concrete evidence to the contrary, for example those who believe the Earth is flat.The second is that of authority where we will accept a belief because someone we respect has told us this is true, such as a parent or teacher. The third is a priori, we believe in something because it appears to be self-evident. We may not be able to prove the theory but we may use the words ‘it stands to reason’ or ‘it makes sense’. However, as each person has a unique idea of what makes sense, two people may draw different conclusions from the same evidence. The fourth and last way of knowing is that of scientific inquiry, demanding proof beyond doubt and free of personal biases and beliefs. This knowledge needs to be applied purely without assumptions of the common-sense nature finding their way into our practice. How many of our beliefs are the result of scientific inquiry? The majority of our accumulated knowledge comes via the first three ways of knowing and therefore cannot be proven to be accurate. Unfortunately we use this erroneous knowledge base for comparison and evaluation of new information. We reject new ideas if they appear to contradict our own. Likewise, if the new corresponds with what we already think we know, we accept it without question. In reality, most of us believe in what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Science Or Fiction?One of the early supporters of Alexander’s work from the scientific community was the biologist G.E. Coghill. He had spent many years studying the reflexes of amphibians and observed a response to a stimulus to one part of the body involved the whole organism. A partial response in the organism such as moving a leg was co-ordinated as part of the total pattern response.In 1941 he met Alexander and was intrigued by his theory of a primary control mechanism in humans. After a number of lessons he wrote the foreword to Alexander’s fourth book ‘The Universal Constant in Living’ in which he states: 1) The Idea - Alexander behaved differently whilst reciting than from normal speaking. 2) The Hypothesis - that the manner of his use during a recital affected his performance. 3) The Observation - the changes to his posture from normal speaking when adopting his classical stage stance, he would pull his head back and down and tighten the neck muscles. 4) The Data Analysis and Conclusion - noting changes to voice, breathing and posture on pulling the head back. Concluding that this habit had a profound affect on his body’s functioning. 5) Development - after experimenting with a number of methods to prevent misuse he observed a marked improvement in his performance when able to overcome his habitual responses. Dewey had a number of lessons from Alexander and experienced dramatic improvements to his health. Impressed by the outcome Dewey wrote extensively about Alexander’s work stating that ‘Mr. Alexander’s teaching is scientific in the strictest sense of the word’ and that his method ‘satisfies the most exacting demands of scientific method’. Related Scientific StudiesAs early as 1845 it was proven that neck musculature played an important role in the posture and movement of animals. In 1897 Charles Sherrington found the muscles of the neck in humans performed the same role. As Alexander’s technique gained popularity in London, a number of scientists began to take an interest. A number of unrelated scientific studies into postural reflexes, notably Sherrington and Coghill supported Alexander’s theory.Professor Raymond Dart, discoverer of the first ‘missing link’ between man and the apes, recognised the importance of Alexander’s work and wrote: - One of the most prominent scientists to support Alexander is the ethnologist Professor Nikolaas Tinbergen who shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology in 1973. In his acceptance speech he praised the work of Alexander and stressed the importance for medical science to be more open-minded to work done outside the usual spheres of their field. Of Alexander he said: - The possible mechanisms for the changes in the Alexander group included increased length and decreased resting tension of muscles of the torso, which in turn may have improved their strength, increased thoracic compliance and enhanced co-ordination. The study concluded that Alexander tuition may enhance respiratory muscular function in normal adult subjects. A study into the benefits of learning The Alexander Technique in relation to performance was conducted at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. ‘A Study of Stress amongst Professional Musicians (1993)’ measured performance stress and compared the effect of a number of methods to reduce its impact. Two methods proved to be more successful than the rest. The results showed that the Alexander Technique was as effective as beta-blocker medication in controlling the negative aspects of the stress response during an orchestra performance (obviously without the side effects of taking a powerful drug). Ongoing research at the Biomedical Engineering Group, University of Surrey is looking at the systems influenced by The Alexander Technique such as the postural reflexes, their interaction with the mechanics of the body and consciousness. Using a combination of force platforms, electromyography and three-dimensional movement analysis, muscle activity was measured during movement. From the work completed to date the study Dr Chris Stevens concludes: - Simultaneous movements of muscle are encoded into a pattern by linking up the active neurons, a sort of re-wiring process in the brain to aid learning. However, repetition of complex patterns can ‘blur’ the body map causing neurons to respond to unrelated signals. Repetition of poor movement develops faulty patterns that in turn corrupt the body map leading to further degradation of movement. The researchers have recognised that RSI is not a problem with the limb but a problem with inappropriate learning. The results prove we can misuse our organism and not be aware of it. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) recorded a corruption of the sensory mechanisms and monitored the outcome of faulty tactile input on movement. To treat the condition they recommend the opposite to current advice of resting the suspect limb, and encourage sufferers to re-educate the sensory body map through controlled precise movement. To guarantee a permanent cure, the underlying condition that allowed the problem to emerge has to be removed, otherwise the faulty patterns will be re-learnt as repetitive work restarts. The research has been unable to determine why some develop RSI while others performing the same tasks do not. The quality of an individual’s use may be a factor in those who will develop the symptoms of RSI. The level of knowledge in the areas relevant to this work has always limited scientific investigation into the Alexander Technique. These systems are still not fully understood and therefore the changes brought about by learning the Alexander Technique cannot, as yet, be analysed comprehensively. Are You Impressed By results?Many of today’s popular exercise methods, nutritional supplements and performance enhancing techniques have as yet little or no scientific evidence to substantiate their claims. Unfortunately, the fact that these may achieve visible results seems to be enough evidence for most. Few consider whether the result is desirable in terms of health and performance or what the long-term effects may be.History is littered with examples of quick fixes that are nothing of the sort and lead to further complications. Systems that promise ‘quick results’ do not make allowances for how an individual will interpret advice. We follow instructions based on our unique sense of what feels right and wrong. Habitual misuse is not addressed if the crucial step of re-education is missing. Without re-education, a system cannot guarantee a beneficial outcome. Systems that make claims of the amazing results that can be achieved do so in order to gain popularity. In the quick fix society it appears all too easy to win converts with a promise of a ‘new you in a matter of weeks’. Breaking through BarriersIf I am asked what I do for a living, invariably the response is, ‘that sounds interesting, what is it?’ The less tactful reply is, ‘never heard of it’ and make the assumption that it is not worth learning, otherwise they would already know of it. We are very good at making instant judgements without any real knowledge to justify them. This is the main obstacle to overcome in order to make the Technique known to a wider audience.The Alexander Technique has been taught for over one hundred years to performing artists yet, with the exception of a few elite athletes, is unknown to most involved in sport. Those who have looked briefly at it often wrongly assume it is about improving posture or treating backache and fail to appreciate its scope and significance to athletes. Why it is not more widely known may be due to a number of reasons. It addresses a problem few of us realise we have (misuse) until we start to have lessons. There are relatively few teachers when compared to other disciplines. Teaching is mainly done on a one-to-one basis, making it a slow process to reach a sizeable proportion of the population. Expectations in today’s world have been raised by advances in science with many believing a quick fix is available for any problem. Learning The Alexander Technique requires the pupil to take responsibility for their actions to address the influence of habit. To benefit, as with any other skill, a number of lessons are necessary. This is not what many want to hear and very quickly the idea of taking lessons is dismissed without further thought. This work needs a level of commitment many are not prepared to make. The Alexander Technique is ideally suited to those with an interest in their health and sport, already dedicated to a life of personal development. The subtle approach can make it look too simplistic to address a complex problem. In common with all the best solutions, it is a simple one. If we are used to a punishing training programme, the perceived physical inactivity during a lesson does not seem to be the best way to improve performance. It takes time to appreciate how the work can bring about a change. It takes time to learn how to change. A subtle, yet fundamental, shift in attitude is required before the real benefits are appreciated. Sadly, a number will give up before this level is attained due to over confidence in their ability. If they have been unable to experience changes following a few lessons, they conclude there cannot be anything to it, rather than accept that they may have been unable to understand the concept. The teacher has to be able to give a practical demonstration of the theory early in a course of lessons to encourage the pupil to continue. This is not always possible if the pupil cannot make a start at preventing the habit. The pupil’s preconceptions and views can sometimes act as a barrier in the early lessons. Many may wish to improve, but do not want to change in the process – an unrealistic expectation. Change can only happen if we can first learn to stop doing the unnecessary things we have always done. The habit of getting ‘set’ to do something has to be prevented. This is achieved by intervening at the point where thought becomes action. If our response to all stimuli is to increase muscular tension, nothing can change until we prevent the initial reaction as this habitual state of excessive tension provides the foundation for all actions. This concept can be difficult to appreciate as it goes against all previous experiences of education, which is that to achieve anything we must try harder. When we can acknowledge the influence attitude has on our actions, we eventually accept that there is no other way. If a house collapses due to inadequate foundations, there is no point rebuilding it whilst the original foundations remain! Alexander’s observations led to the development of a method described by biologist George Coghill ‘as thoroughly scientific’. Alexander’s discovery was so fundamental that many, regardless of qualification or experience, have difficulty in comprehending the basic principles. Whilst a growing number in the medical profession fully endorse Alexander’s work, many still view it as an alternative therapy for treating poor posture, and choose not to investigate further. It is ironic that conventional means to correct perceived postural problems are, by definition, ‘alternative’ as they have little or no scientific basis. Firstly, poor posture is only a symptom and should not be ‘treated’ as a condition. Secondly, an understanding of the physiological processes involved would make it apparent that instructing someone with an existing musculo-skeletal problem to ‘sit up straight’ or perform corrective exercises cannot work. It is ludicrous to believe that if a machine with faulty instrumentation is wrong, it will be able to correct itself using the same faulty instrumentation for guidance. Our concept of how we function is at odds with the reality. Assumptions are based on a limited understanding of ourselves leading to misconceptions that can affect how we use our body. We have no experience of the majority of internal activities occurring beneath the level of consciousness. The most influential aspect in our behaviour is not known to us - habit. When we raise the leg to step forward we are not aware of the pull by the hip flexor (psoas) muscle attached to the lumbar spine. The movement is our habitual response to the wish to be somewhere else in the room. It is only when messages from pain receptors reach a conscious level, that we become aware of the muscle’s function. As much of Alexander’s philosophy goes against our common-sense view of who we are, it can be difficult to appreciate in the early lessons. Without a personal, subjective experience of a lesson it is practically impossible. Many of the techniques used by sports psychologists and coaches cannot match the scientific endorsements of Alexander’s work. According to Prof. John Raglin, a Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine, the supportive research into methods such as visualisation, relaxation techniques and confidence enhancement is ‘often lacking or seriously flawed’. The acceptance of these methods by coaches and athletes give them a ‘social validity’ - wide recognition that affords them credibility. This is not a status enjoyed by The Alexander Technique at present. Perhaps the main reason for the Technique not being used more in sport is the attitude that ‘if it was any good, I would have heard of it’. If everyone takes this view it perpetuates the situation as no one is prepared to experiment.
|
