OT: “The Posture Pandemic.”

[XXtwindad]

Just read an interesting interview with the author of “Slouch: Posture Panic in Modern America.” Although I haven’t read the book (I plan to) I read the full transcript of the interview here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/s...e-science.html

Her basic premise is that posture as an indicator of health is largely overrated. The author goes further, ascribing some politicized reasons behind judging “poor” posture; namely, that it’s similar to the “phrenology” movements of the early 20th Century. (This was the debunked racially motivated theory that skull size correlated to intellect)

“In some ways, it’s the phrenology of the 20th century. We use posture to judge character, intelligence and physical ability. Like, if you’re a slouch, that also means that you’re somehow lazy.

It’s shallow and ableist to estimate what another person can or cannot do based on their posture. In terms of long-term health, I think the jury is still out on that.”

I disagree with the author’s premise. I think poor posture is a huge problem, particularly for people who work in an office environment and for the generation of younger adults who are wedded to their mobile devices. Many people are thrust forward all day long, causing their entire posterior chains (lats, traps, hip flexors, glutes, hamstrings, etc) to become shortened and tight. Injuries are much more likely with tight muscles.

Cycling is a fantastic sport with many health benefits. But it also mimics the work environment many of us are in for extended periods of time (seated and thrust forward). The best antidotes to that are trying to minimize sitting time as much as possible, adjusting the location of mobile devices, lengthening and stretching muscles (with yoga for example) and, yes, paying attention to your posture.

[d_douglas]

As a person with poor posture (yes, I will admit it), I agree. I am not lazy or dumb, but I surely need to invest less time sitting at a desk and more time stretching and going to a gym.

I wont read it, but its interesting to know that such a theory exists!

[bicycletricycle]

I don’t think we really know anything about the human body

[vertr]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I don’t think we really know anything about the human body

I think we have a good idea about what types of movements and postures lead to good outcomes and which ones lead to bad outcomes (injury).

[benb]

I don't think anyone disagrees with any of this.

But it's total wishful thinking the modern world can work without lots of people working at sitting jobs.

At least till AI/Robots take all our jobs away anyway, and they solve aging.

[krooj]

Trust medical "advice" from a journalist about as much as lottery numbers from a fortune cookie.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Just read an interesting interview with the author of “Slouch: Posture Panic in Modern America.” Although I haven’t read the book (I plan to) I read the full transcript of the interview here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/s...e-science.html

Her basic premise is that posture as an indicator of health is largely overrated. The author goes further, ascribing some politicized reasons behind judging “poor” posture; namely, that it’s similar to the “phrenology” movements of the early 20th Century. (This was the debunked racially motivated theory that skull size correlated to intellect)

“In some ways, it’s the phrenology of the 20th century. We use posture to judge character, intelligence and physical ability. Like, if you’re a slouch, that also means that you’re somehow lazy.

It’s shallow and ableist to estimate what another person can or cannot do based on their posture. In terms of long-term health, I think the jury is still out on that.”

I disagree with the author’s premise. I think poor posture is a huge problem, particularly for people who work in an office environment and for the generation of younger adults who are wedded to their mobile devices. Many people are thrust forward all day long, causing their entire posterior chains (lats, traps, hip flexors, glutes, hamstrings, etc) to become shortened and tight. Injuries are much more likely with tight muscles.

Cycling is a fantastic sport with many health benefits. But it also mimics the work environment many of us are in for extended periods of time (seated and thrust forward). The best antidotes to that are trying to minimize sitting time as much as possible, adjusting the location of mobile devices, lengthening and stretching muscles (with yoga for example) and, yes, paying attention to your posture.

I haven't read the book either, but from the quoted description, I think you missed the point. The quote says nothing about the health aspects of poor posture, it talks about the cultural perceptions about poor posture. The old saying says, "you can't judge a book by its cover," but so often, people do.

Poor posture isn't the only aspect of physical appearance that results in personal bias. Another one, and often less controllable by the individual, is bad teeth. Someone with missing or broken teeth, is often perceived by others as a "drunken hillbilly", or a "enraged brawler", or some other low form of human. But the state of a person's teeth more directly reflects their access to dentistry, which may be out of their control - for example, as a result of poverty (or more particularly, their parent's poverty). Here's an article regarding the difficulty of getting a job with poor teeth:

https://www.deseret.com/2012/12/27/2...%20for%20care.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by vertr

I think we have a good idea about what types of movements and postures lead to good outcomes and which ones lead to bad outcomes (injury).

Maybe, I just had a long conversation with a PT guy who explained to me that MRI results are basically disassociated from actual pain in the patient. He has patients with terrible scans and no pain and great scans in lots of pain.

[benb]

Originally Posted by krooj

Trust medical "advice" from a journalist about as much as lottery numbers from a fortune cookie.

Not from a journalist:

Beth Linker is the Samuel H. Preston Endowed Term Professor at the University of Pennsylvania in the Department of the History and Sociology of Science. Her research and teaching interests include the history of science and medicine, disability, health care policy, and gender.

She seems like exactly the right kind of person to write a book about how posture would or has affected how people treat each other.

[krooj]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Maybe, I just had a long conversation with a PT guy who explained to me that MRI results are basically disassociated from actual pain in the patient. He has patients with terrible scans and no pain and great scans in lots of pain.

I've been told the same thing by PAs, neurosurgeons, and a couple of orthopedic spine surgeons. The interesting connection actually came from speaking with a psychiatrist: depression. Depressive states can lead to changes in how much we feel pain. AFAIK, there are papers out there on this, but back pain and depression go hand-in-hand.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I haven't read the book either, but from the quoted description, I think you missed the point. The quote says nothing about the health aspects of poor posture, it talks about the cultural perceptions about poor posture. The old saying says, "you can't judge a book by its cover," but so often, people do.

Poor posture isn't the only aspect of physical appearance that results in personal bias. Another one, and often less controllable by the individual, is bad teeth. Someone with missing or broken teeth, is often perceived by others as a "drunken hillbilly", or a "enraged brawler", or some other low form of human. But the state of a person's teeth more directly reflects their access to dentistry, which may be out of their control - for example, as a result of poverty (or more particularly, their parent's poverty). Here's an article regarding the difficulty of getting a job with poor teeth:

https://www.deseret.com/2012/12/27/2...%20for%20care.

I understand the author’s argument. It’s the same one fat activists have made recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/21/w...ole-smith.html. Principle among their arguments is that fitness and all of its associated characteristics is largely predicated on income. Certainly, as it pertains to health, there’s a large degree of truth to that.

But if you are injured due to poor posture/tight muscles/extended sitting, then, by definition, you are not healthy. Ironically, this tends to impact office workers who skew more affluent.

[vertr]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Maybe, I just had a long conversation with a PT guy who explained to me that MRI results are basically disassociated from actual pain in the patient. He has patients with terrible scans and no pain and great scans in lots of pain.

I'm currently reading a book called "Back Mechanic" that makes a similar argument. Primarily that most back surgeries for pain are unnecessary and caused by MRI scans not being useful for diagnosis and the prevailing medical opinion is that they are. The book places a lot of emphasis on moving in a way that prevents injury, which is why I said the previous thing.

[krooj]

Originally Posted by benb

She seems like exactly the right kind of person to write a book about how posture would or has affected how people treat each other.

But that's not the entire scope of this article; the author constantly alludes to posture and health, questioning whether there is any positive link. What I see here is a history professor that wants to push a book they wrote.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by krooj

But that's not the entire scope of this article; the author constantly alludes to posture and health, questioning whether there is any positive link. What I see here is a history professor that wants to push a book they wrote.

I see the same thing.

[rkhatibi]

A history professor with a physio undergrad.

2006 Ph.D., Department of History, Yale University
2003 M.Phil., Program in the History of Medicine and Science, Yale University
1999 M.A., Bioethics, Humanities, and Society, Michigan State
University
1992 B.S., Ithaca College, Physical Therapy

I found this review/discussion less bombastic. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...er-book-review

specifically

Before it did, though, Dieck was able to determine that, contrary to the decades-long drumbeat of the posture-correction establishment, a diagnosis of poor posture in youth didn’t correlate strongly with future back pain; even scoliosis, which at the time was aggressively treated with metal braces, and sometimes with steel-rod implants, played a “relatively unimportant role in the development of spinal pain in the adult years.” The findings brought into question all the allegedly predictive surveillance of posture, not to mention all the devices and treatments sold to Americans with the promise of averting future pain.

I think the business end of human high performance where form follows function is outside what appears to be an overview of the last century.