Stretching for mobility, flexibility, wellbeing

[Taomeow]

I think you may want to look at the position of the baby.  That's where "horseback riding" in MA would come form naturally, and that's what "civilized" babies are deprived of.  The ass is not meant by mother nature as a sexualized toy it has been turned into.  It's meant for a human mother to help carry her child on her upright body.  If she gets it at the gym to wiggle at interested males, both she and the males are way off. 

 

And that's where other normal developmental postural peculiarities of a human must come from.  Now you're saying they still carry babies like that in China?  I haven't seen it.  Although I know they used to, I remember reading a book by the great American participant in Chinese life, Pearl Buck (who won the Nobel prize in literature for her novels about China, where she grew up), one of whose female protagonists, a matriarch of a large family, was feeling out of sorts when she "didn't have a child on her thigh."  I remember this line puzzled me -- until I saw the above picture.  Oh.  That's how they used to give children correct postures. 

[dust]

I think you may want to look at the position of the baby.  That's where "horseback riding" in MA would come form naturally, and that's what "civilized" babies are deprived of.  The ass is not meant by mother nature as a sexualized toy it has been turned into.  It's meant for a human mother to help carry her child on her upright body.  If she gets it at the gym to wiggle at interested males, both she and the males are way off.

 

But... you're not saying that child-bearing and child-rearing have no connection to what men find sexually attractive. Just that it's not the primary function. Right?

Edited October 29, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Taomeow]

But... you're not saying that child-bearing and child-rearing have no connection to what men find sexually attractive. Just that it's not the primary function. Right?

 

I can't be the judge of what men find sexually attractive naturally, except indirectly, but I do notice that in modern times, they have been trained in what to find sexually attractive, offered countless "models" (images, "stars," prepackaged products they were sold under the product description "sexy woman") of what a woman is like who is sexually desirable.  At the same time they were not exposed to much natural developmental interactions that could prepare the boy to discern what he really needs.  Our society has shut down all venues for human closeness except sexual, but since we need a helluva lot more than that, every need that went unmet got sexualized.  This makes it acceptable to have the need for physical intimacy, for the warmth and presence and reliability and support of another human body satisfied via sex or pursuit of sex, and nothing else.  It has to be sexual or it is not acceptable in our set-up, and when any kind of human intimacy and closeness happens, it is interpreted as sexual because everything else has been shut down at the source.  

 

In the original human setting, before "civilization," no, the ability to bear children was not the main sexual attraction, because it was pretty ubiquitous -- any young healthy woman is extremely, extremely fertile, as those who have been on a quest for safe and reliable contraception are finding even today, let alone when we lived in pristine environments.  There's some evidence that the highest prize was the woman's ability to teach (to sexually engage in something a bit like a master-student relationship -- or a lot), and teenage boys competed for the sexual attention of crones, while young women were quite easily available and having sex with them was not competed for.  That's because paternity was a moot point altogether, since the whole tribe raised the child anyway.  So seeking out to preserve the "bloodline" is only something that became a motivator once certain "bloodlines" got this idea of setting themselves apart (or were apart from the start, who knows) -- but early indigenous tribes didn't even know that the father has something to do with conception, or if they knew, they didn't care. 

 

This is what the paleolithic and neolithic "sex symbol" looked like -- hundreds of statuettes found all over the world dating back to our earliest history depict her this way for tens of thousands of years, without any major change to the image of Mother Goddess:

 

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/earthmother.htm

Edited October 29, 2016 by Taomeow

[dust]

I can't be the judge of what men find sexually attractive naturally, except indirectly, but I do notice that in modern times, they have been trained in what to find sexually attractive, offered countless "models" (images, "stars," prepackaged products they were sold under the product description "sexy woman") of what a woman is like who is sexually desirable.  At the same time they were not exposed to much natural developmental interactions that could prepare the boy to discern what he really needs.  Our society has shut down all venues for human closeness except sexual, but since we need a helluva lot more than that, every need that went unmet got sexualized.  This makes it acceptable to have the need for physical intimacy, for the warmth and presence and reliability and support of another human body satisfied via sex or pursuit of sex, and nothing else.  It has to be sexual or it is not acceptable in our set-up, and when any kind of human intimacy and closeness happens, it is interpreted as sexual because everything else has been shut down at the source. 

 

Oh, I entirely agree.

 

I've always found the Western obsession with breasts a bit OTT. I do believe that there's an evolutionary tendency to look at breasts as a signal, but the degree to which some guys obsess over boobs (and yes, more recently, butts) is really beyond me.

 

 

In the original human setting, before "civilization," no, the ability to bear children was not the main sexual attraction, because it was pretty ubiquitous -- any young healthy woman is extremely, extremely fertile, as those who have been on a quest for safe and reliable contraception are finding even today, let alone when we lived in pristine environments.  There's some evidence that the highest prize was the woman's ability to teach (to sexually engage in something a bit like a master-student relationship -- or a lot), and teenage boys competed for the sexual attention of crones, while young women were quite easily available and having sex with them was not competed for.  That's because paternity was a moot point altogether, since the whole tribe raised the child anyway.  So seeking out to preserve the "bloodline" is only something that became a motivator once certain "bloodlines" got this idea of setting themselves apart (or were apart from the start, who knows) -- but early indigenous tribes didn't even know that the father has something to do with conception, or if they knew, they didn't care. 

 

This is what the paleolithic and neolithic "sex symbol" looked like -- hundreds of statuettes found all over the world dating back to our earliest history depict her this way for tens of thousands of years, without any major change to the image of Mother Goddess:

 

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/earthmother.htm

 

I'd still have to argue that a few points of sexual attraction on women are linked closely to child-bearing/rearing. Aside from anything else, it is precisely when women start filling out that they (1) are starting to become sexually mature and (2) start becoming attractive to men.

 

I know very well how it is to lust after all kinds of women, and am certainly not saying "Men only find young women with perky bums attractive", but the signs are there for those males who take notice: 'perky' bum and boobs suggest youth, voluminous suggests sexually mature, a bit of extra fat suggests good 'supplies' for feeding, wide hips suggest a better chance of getting the child out, etc. And the things you've mentioned are not (imo) contrary to any of this...

Edited October 29, 2016 by dustybeijing

[gendao]

But... you're not saying that child-bearing and child-rearing have no connection to what men find sexually attractive. Just that it's not the primary function. Right?

Well, reproduction IS the primary evolutionary function of sex and is what defines "sexiness" on an instinctive subconscious level...

 

Muscular glutes are more an indicator of proper posture, neural activation, and healthy biomechanics, though.  And someone who has all of these will be more fit, athletic, and less prone to injury.

Due to their natural strength and the leverage advantage they have over your legs, the glutes should always be the primary muscles that drive lower body movement. Not only does this include more ballistic activities like running and jumping, but also walking

 

if you create the proper posture and have the right muscle balance you won't have to use a ton of glute activation exercises because they will naturally activate. The key thing is getting your body working efficiently so that ALL your movements are driven by the correct muscles. A simple way to grasp the concept of footwork and horsepower is think of tieing the feet and the glutes together.

 

You have the main power generator at one end (the glutes), and how well that force gets delivered depends on the functionality on the other end (the feet). When you couple a strong glute dominant activation pattern at one end (the hip), and strong and efficient feet at the other end (the ground), you can't help but move well.

Another comparison of the "primitive" Natural Man vs the literal collapse of Western civilization:

Also note that the "primitive" Man regularly walks around barefoot - while the Western man is perpetually clod in shoes. Note that the "primitive" Man also regularly squats - while the Western man only sits.  Etc, etc...  Thing is, over decades, all these Westernized maladaptations cumulatively start taking their collective toll and you gradually end up with the denatured figure on your right (or often much worse), lol.

 

The cure of which is of course to return back to our own innate Nature - exactly what Daoists continually strive for - on multiple levels!

Edited October 29, 2016 by gendao

[Taomeow]

@dusty:

 

Well, yes, it is normal to be sexually attracted to a woman who is ready for both, procreational sex and pregnancy, to notice the markers, and to treat girls who don't have those signs as "daughters" and "nieces" and "sisters."  It also used to be natural, apparently, to treat signs of aging in women as markers of readiness for cultivational sex rather than procreational sex, though I doubt that these markers were entirely physical -- after all as a species we didn't differ then from what we are now, and we always had a brain.  (At least until very recently...)

 

All taoist arts of the bedchamber (the real deal, not Mantak Chia's sexual constipation practices) are based on the premise that sex is way more than procreation and pleasure, it's a direct unbroken connection to the source of life itself, and like any high level practice, takes time and experience to fully master.  I believe they come from that faraway prehistory --

 

of which we know so little and have been told so many lies so often by people who pose as experts without any merit, just based on their penchant for extrapolating how THEY would fare under those circumstances.  That's why they portray our ancestors as clumsy and accident-prone and generally at the mercy of everything -- the elements, the beasts, "struggle for survival," what not.  Then they dig up a skeleton of quite possibly a centenarian and assert that our ancestors lived short lives because to them this skeleton looks like that of a modern 20-year-old --  no arthritis, no osteoporosis...  they determine lifespans by the amount of accumulated bone degradation, they have no other measuring tool for this.  And it doesn't occur to them that a human born and raised into health and never stunted from reaching peak abilities of the body and mind (there was nothing to take away from these and everything to let them fully unfold) was a creature not only very sturdy but in fact formidably strong and powerful.  And long lifespans were necessary because grandparents were prominently active in child-rearing... and frail, stupid old men and women is a modern civilized phenomenon -- people used to grow wise and competent with age, not senile...

 

...but I digress too far. 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Taomeow

[dust]

I do enjoy reading your rants, especially the ones regarding the ancients. I recall a similar post a year or so ago in which you were similarly indignant about age estimation based on bone degradation..

 

And we can bring the digression back around: yes, a muscular and voluptuous bum (with a strong core and mobile hips!) is something to be proud of. Movement, baby carrying, attracting people, and more. And we can, hopefully, repattern our own musculature with good stretching and movement in the hope that we might regain some of what's been lost.....

 

 

 

I've been trying to improve my resting squat for the better part of the year (though not with great consistency). At the beginning of the year my hips were so tight and I had such poor dorsiflexion that squatting for 30 seconds on flat ground was a challenge (though still better than 2-3 years ago, when I couldn't squat at all). General stretching and doing my best to rest in the squat whenever convenient (not always convenient!) has helped, but recently slow & low squatting with a barbell with low weight (20-40kg) has got my resting squat noticeably more comfortable in just a couple of weeks. Just to highlight another loaded / resistance-based stretch..

[Taomeow]

Sorry to repeat myself, I don't always remember what I said where to whom, but I always remember what I believe to be true.  This is a fractal trait, self-similarity, tao mao fa ziran.  Taomeow patterns herself on herself. 

 

As for the squat with weights...  um, I don't know anything about that, but since bums have already been amply discussed, especially ample bums, I will take them further.  The best training for the squat is the habit of squatting on the toilet, feet on the rim.  I may have mentioned this before too, if not, here it is.  I'm told that it's hard for people who have never done it, and they use some training device, a step or something, for the learning stage.  The benefit of practicing the squat this way is that you will practice every day. 

Edited October 30, 2016 by Taomeow

[Orion]

Stretching is good, not enough people do it. I live on the west coast where there's the opposite problem. People stretch so much that they become hyperflexible and start to lose joint stability. In some of the bodywork groups I've done with physical rehab patients, there have been more than a few people who were recovering from yoga, believe it or not.

 

Often when people watch videos or take classes, they compare their mobility to other people. Most of the people who are "good" at yoga and take all those awesome photos in coffee table books have over-extended tendons and ligaments. Very few people can sustain that into old age. If you do that much stretching you really have to do some muscle building to balance it out, otherwise you get what we industry insiders call "linguine joints".

 

But normal everyday stretching is awesome.

 

I just learned recently that the spinal discs are vascular until you reach puberty, then they become avascular. That's why kids are so much more flexible, because their spinal discs are constantly nourished and wastes are taken away. I've been studying medicine for over 10 years and somehow this fact escaped me.

 

So you actually HAVE to stretch to get new nutrients flowing to the spine.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Orion

[dust]

Sorry to repeat myself, I don't always remember what I said where to whom, but I always remember what I believe to be true.  This is a fractal trait, self-similarity, tao mao fa ziran.  Taomeow patterns herself on herself.

 

Don't be sorry. Honestly an enjoyable rant.

 

 

As for the squat with weights...  um, I don't know anything about that, but since bums have already been amply discussed, especially ample bums, I will take them further.  The best training for the squat is the habit of squatting on the toilet, feet on the rim.  I may have mentioned this before too, if not, here it is.  I'm told that it's hard for people who have never done it, and they use some training device, a step or something, for the learning stage.  The benefit of practicing the squat this way is that you will practice every day. 

 

I'm always worried that I'll miss.

 

It's a shame that even in China there's a trend towards the sitting...

 

Edited October 30, 2016 by dustybeijing

[blue eyed snake]

this is a nice thread

 

i remember as a child and teenager I preferred walking barefoot and sitting in halflotus and squat.

i had many problems with it, the schoolteachers thought i behaved abnormally, me sitting in half lotus at my little desk and then forgetting my shoes when we got out of the classroom.

 

and I remember well how exasperated my mum could be when my shoes had  'vanished' again 

[gendao]

Right, so you see how Western civilization is a steady, progressive, anti-natural, degeneration of both mankind & the entire planet?

 

By sh*tting in pots, we no longer fertilize the ground and spread seeds of edible plants.  By flushing it with clean potable freshwater - we are both wasting and contaminating that global resource.  By sitting up instead of squatting, we are preventing complete elimination as well as weakening our glutes, etc.

 

To restore sustainable health back to ourselves and the planet - we actually need to be reversing this whole "evolution!"  Go back to sh*tting in the woods like bears!

 

America doesn't need CrossFit...  They just need to SquatSh*t, and at least start installing squat potties in their homes instead of sitting johns!

Edited October 30, 2016 by gendao

[dust]

Having taken a few shits in the woods... I agree. It's not so fun by a lake with midges swarming up your passage, but a good wood shit is very satisfying.

 

And yes, if we pooed into relatively deep holes like is still done all over China and many other places, we could use dirty water to wash it away without worrying about dirty-water splashback (splashback being a problem in some modern toilets).

 

I also don't get the fondness for wiping butt with toilet paper. A quick rinse is much nicer. And I haven't done any calculations but I'd bet that a quick rinse with clean water is more eco-friendly and efficient and sanitary than grabbing up wads of tissue (many people I've shared living quarters with go through unspeakable amounts of paper each week).

 

Not sure about the whole of "Western civilization" being bad though (which one might infer from what you said!). I'd argue it's given us a lot of good stuff along with the degeneration. There should be a balance to be found...

[gendao]

Not sure about the whole of "Western civilization" being bad though (which one might infer from what you said!). I'd argue it's given us a lot of good stuff along with the degeneration. There should be a balance to be found...

It's a bit of a tongue-in-cheeky meme.  I don't really mean absolutely only or all of Western civilization...

 

But to a large degree, a lot of these Western "improvements" (slight deviations from Nature) do seductively offer more presently convenient, "aesthetic," or apparent improvements of quality of life - but at unseen prices (typically damaging longterm health and widespread environmental impacts).  The Western vs Indigenous ways of simply taking a sh*t, are a great example of this difference!

Edited October 30, 2016 by gendao

[sagebrush]

lota...

much like a bidet but poor mans version

 

maybe spelled incorrect.

Edited October 30, 2016 by sagebrush

[dust]

lota...

much like a bidet but poor mans version

 

maybe spelled incorrect.

 

Would you want one? Some decent water pressure and we can have the water shoot out 

[Taomeow]

I'm always worried that I'll miss.

 

 

The Chinese picture shows someone squatting who can't squat, he's perching too high!   I guess one would have to practice on solid ground first, and then your squat is so low you can't miss, the bum is not hovering over the target, it's right on target.  Incidentally, this is the cure for many gut problems too, because all the acupoints for the stomach are located in the middle of the foot and the rim under your body weight provides acupressure stimulation of these points, but even more importantly, the sitting position bends the intestines so you have to work against resistance.  I've always marveled at people who. e.g., read books or, these days, probably use their smartphones or laptops sitting on the john --  how much time do they need?  The squat gives no time at all for any unrelated activities.    

Edited October 30, 2016 by Taomeow

[liminal_luke]

​http://naturesplatform.com/all_products.html

 

For those who want to squat but find the rim challenging.

[dawei]

To help to learn the squat position, if challenging, is to put a book under each heal so they raise just a little bit... that is the tough part of getting into the position at the start.   BTW:  This is true for doing squats with weights.  One should have something raise the heals a little to take tension off areas that should not get tense.

 

I thought I had heard that the squat position though good for the stomach caused some other issues like hemorrhoids.

 

Ok... one squat story... in case you're ever in china and on a train... its a tricky squat with a wet floor and moving training. After my business, I was surprised they didn't make it easier with a hand rail... then I turned around and realized I faced the wrong direction  .     And please keep tissue on you everywhere, many places won't provide it

[Taomeow]

The

 

 

I thought I had heard that the squat position though good for the stomach caused some other issues like hemorrhoids.

 

 

Urban legend.   If anything, it should prevent them.

 

The real danger is in doing it incorrectly and hurting the knees.  The squat must be done as the outcome of elongating the spine, not stretching out the ligaments in the knees.  The same rule that is used in taiji applies here: the knees must not go past the toes.

 

 

 

This kind of squat, with your butt no more than an inch off the ground, is pretty easy for me, but I practice a difficult one too, which I was taught by one of master Wang Liping's instructors.  You squat in the horseback riding stance, going down and up with your spine absolutely straight, not sticking out the butt but pointing the tailbone straight down.  Palms together, pointing upward.  The instructor told me to aim to meditate in this position.  Well...  no.  No way.  Unless a one minute meditation counts.   At one point, I was doing it at the beach and some guy saw me from far away and came running to ask me what it was that I was doing.  Turned out he was a Krav Maga practitioner, and could tell that I was doing something pretty difficult.  People who don't practice anything never seemed impressed by this move even though I do it every time as a warm-up for my walking qigong on the beach.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Taomeow

[Papayapple]

What if you just ate dinner and need to go? is it okay to sit in a squat while the belly is being squeezed by your thighs?

[Rishi Das]

To help to learn the squat position, if challenging, is to put a book under each heal so they raise just a little bit...

 

Make it an old book and be conscious of ripping pages/chapters out every couple days/weeks.

 

Great way to move oneself into a natural squat.

 

Also, squatty potty is another good brand for those needing assistance in the restroom.

 

https://www.squattypotty.com/?gclid=CjwKEAiAqozEBRDJrPem0fPKtX0SJAD5sAyHGT52zgwX0qL2qJMHaUNS2UIB0ccUT4d-hPl7cNtzwxoCcVnw_wcB

[Taomeow]

What if you just ate dinner and need to go? is it okay to sit in a squat while the belly is being squeezed by your thighs?

 

Think of it this way.  The sitting toilet was first invented in the 16th century, wasn't accepted until the 19th century, and was unknown to the majority of the world population till a few decades ago, even though Westerners have been widely using it for about a hundred years, give or take.  The inventors of the sitting toilet were not men of medicine.  The rationale for their invention was that the sitting position is more dignified and should be adopted by the British colonists in order to set them apart in their elimination habits from the natives they ruled.  

 

We didn't evolve to do anything but squat when we need to go.  The new technology did eventually eliminate the normal natural body use we've evolved for the task, but the driving force behind these new developments had nothing to do with what's healthy for any organs (the sitting toilet happens to benefit none) and everything to do with turning a rather unhealthy idea of a "dignified" dump into a commercial enterprise of global profitability.  Scroll up the thread for those pictures they use to "reeducate" the Chinese right now.  This was done to Europeans and Americans a hundred years earlier, is all.        

 

We actually live in a world where fubar ideas turned into corporate profits supply an environment we take for granted that dictates to us how we use our bodies from birth to death, and most of those ways to use our bodies are physiologically insane.   

Edited January 22, 2017 by Taomeow

[Papayapple]

Taomeow

That's a great summary Taomeow.

 

Some say that our rectums are permanently deformed because of sitting on toilets since early age.

 

That's not so good, but I'm only wondering whether a sudden change to squatting won't cause some problems, just assay starting walking barefoot all the time(your feet won't take it).

 

On the other hand, mattresses were probably also "invented", or at least popularized some 100 years ago. And I think everybody would agree they work better than a bed of straw...

 

Same goes for lot's of other things.

 

About squatting: I practiced it about a year ago, after I've done a prolonged fast, and it was incredible(especially because I was on raw food and there was no need to wipe or clean whatsoever, not to mention there was no bad smell! Oh I miss that lol).

 

Now I have trouble deciding whether I should sacrifice my knees to promote good elimination. I can't squat!

 

Maybe bending over touch your knees with your chest while sitting is enough?

 

Cheers.

[Taomeow]

That's a great summary Taomeow.

 

Some say that our rectums are permanently deformed because of sitting on toilets since early age.

 

That's not so good, but I'm only wondering whether a sudden change to squatting won't cause some problems, just assay starting walking barefoot all the time(your feet won't take it).

 

On the other hand, mattresses were probably also "invented", or at least popularized some 100 years ago. And I think everybody would agree they work better than a bed of straw...

 

Same goes for lot's of other things.

 

About squatting: I practiced it about a year ago, after I've done a prolonged fast, and it was incredible(especially because I was on raw food and there was no need to wipe or clean whatsoever, not to mention there was no bad smell! Oh I miss that lol).

 

Now I have trouble deciding whether I should sacrifice my knees to promote good elimination. I can't squat!

 

Maybe bending over touch your knees with your chest while sitting is enough?

 

Cheers.

 

A bed of straw is definitely better to sleep on than the mattress!  I've slept on straw tucked under the tarpaulin floor of a tent in the wild, and it was the best sleep of my life -- at one point (on dry clover hay that smells like paradise) everybody in our group pulled off between 14 and 18 hours of sleep in one stretch, the bodies seemed to be making up for all the sleep lost under "civilized" conditions.  There's a thread somewhere where I shared my quest for the perfect sleeping surface for the spine, qi, and so on, and although it is not a bed of straw I ultimately zeroed in on, it's most definitely not a mattress that causes your mingmen area to sag (leaking qi from the Gate of Life all through the night) and is the root of much back pain and bad postures (an epidemic). 

 

As for sacrificing the knees -- no, of course not, but I think higher up the thread it has been discussed.  You should never squat with your knees going past your toes, or in or out -- keep them smack over your ankles -- and you can practice (on flat surface for starters) as high as you can manage and squat lower gradually, the action is in the spine and the hip joints, not in the knees.  Do stuff to elongate your spine and open your hips for a good squat and leave the knees out of it, they are there for the ride only and should not take any pressure onto themselves.  Good luck. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Taomeow