Another framework that I’ve found myself teaching recently is… “listen to your body… and also your body is a dirty liar”
This allows them to have a communication with their body to gain awareness and run diagnostics, and also know that if their warmup feels sluggish it doesn’t mean that the work sets will.
It’s allowed for more movement optimism/realism, with them knowing that they aren’t fragile butterflies but robust adaptable beasts.
We know we’ve succeeded in teaching the lesson when they can hold two seemingly opposite views as true.
I agree! It’s important to flesh out the “body map” so they have something to listen to.
While it’s important to listen, that’s often not enough. Listening is only one aspect of relationship. How one responds is often more important.
Depending on their physical literacy, guiding them towards a specific part (leg) or layer (bone) or function (breath) of the body seems to work better.
This makes me also think about “internal” and “external” cues and what the goal of having them listen to the body is. If the goal is performance based, an external cues would be better, but if the goal is to develop more somatic awareness, a specific internal cue would be better.
Yes, I was going to add a bit about internal vs external cueing. But it was opening a whole 'notha can of worms. I love the words you are using here: physical literacy & body map.
I like that quote from Bruce Lee, also comes back to the Einstellug effect for me because initially what most people are looking for is a sense of control, but by accepting and going with nature we give up on control and find harmony.
Einstellung effect - good to have a name for it! It definitely affected me personally for years. It's why I'd also give my students questions to ask and notice the response - share a process of what I think listening to the body is.
Another framework that I’ve found myself teaching recently is… “listen to your body… and also your body is a dirty liar”
This allows them to have a communication with their body to gain awareness and run diagnostics, and also know that if their warmup feels sluggish it doesn’t mean that the work sets will.
It’s allowed for more movement optimism/realism, with them knowing that they aren’t fragile butterflies but robust adaptable beasts.
We know we’ve succeeded in teaching the lesson when they can hold two seemingly opposite views as true.
I agree! It’s important to flesh out the “body map” so they have something to listen to.
While it’s important to listen, that’s often not enough. Listening is only one aspect of relationship. How one responds is often more important.
Depending on their physical literacy, guiding them towards a specific part (leg) or layer (bone) or function (breath) of the body seems to work better.
This makes me also think about “internal” and “external” cues and what the goal of having them listen to the body is. If the goal is performance based, an external cues would be better, but if the goal is to develop more somatic awareness, a specific internal cue would be better.
Yes, I was going to add a bit about internal vs external cueing. But it was opening a whole 'notha can of worms. I love the words you are using here: physical literacy & body map.
I like that quote from Bruce Lee, also comes back to the Einstellug effect for me because initially what most people are looking for is a sense of control, but by accepting and going with nature we give up on control and find harmony.
Einstellung effect - good to have a name for it! It definitely affected me personally for years. It's why I'd also give my students questions to ask and notice the response - share a process of what I think listening to the body is.
Love the nuance here, Geoffrey