FIRST, let me say that Ida P. Rolf made GREAT, invaluable contributions to the fields of Bodywork & Alternate Therapies. She did a LOT to further legitimize them. And she helped expand medical ideas about human "structure" beyond just the bones & joints to include the musculo-fascial structures in our concepts OF structure.
And she stimulated a LOT of research into fascia and other aspects of therapy that has been VERY valuable, but rare up till then.
And without Ida Rolf and Structural Integration (more commonly known as Rolfing®) there might not have been a Daniel Blake and Structural Bodywork. And without Daniel I might STILL be wondering how to straighten out a human musculoskeletal structure!
SO ... I owe a DEEP DEBT OF GRATITUDE for Ida's work. Rolfing was a "Grandparent" to MY work. ... So Thank You Ida!
On With The Story ...
For a couple of years, before I met Daniel Blake, I assumed I would have to go to Boulder and study Rolfing to learn what I wanted to know about structural approaches to bodywork.
At the time, Rolfers were the main group talking about structure and more aggressively about “changing bodies” rather than just helping people relax their muscles and improve circulation such as with massage. So I thought they were the best place to go to learn that content.
A book, The Protean Body by Don Johnson, had convinced me that “changing a body,” even substantially, was certainly possible. And Don had done it by becoming a Rolfer. And Rolfing DOES in many cases solve a Client's problems and DOES balance their posture.
It did not appear to me that Physical Therapy (PT) would or could provide the kind of information about the human musculoskeletal system I wanted. And there were other problems with going that route. But from what numerous Clients, and a few PTs who took my training programs told me, PT does not work at the level I want(ed) to work. That was true in the early 1980s, and appears to still be the case. Although a few PTs have gone off and embraced other modalities beyond classical PT Training.
Even with only a few years of experience, I already knew I could already make people's bodies change significantly, very often to very positive effect. But I could not with any great specificity predict, or know ahead of time, what specific changes would happen when I released specific muscles.
So I was kind of shooting blind, what some therapists used to call Poke & Hope or Hopium. Yet I believed that if I knew enough about the human muscular system, I would be able to evaluate & predetermine what changes I could predictably make, rather than poke and hope that it worked.
Yet several experiences led me to have my whether doubts about whether Rolfing, or the Structual Integration school, was the place to go for me to learn that material.
1.) One was that I tried to work with FIVE different Rolfers in the Chicago area. Every one of them caused so much pain from the very beginning of the sessions I could not take it. (It's hard to say I was a WIMP because if you knew what ironworkers go through every day ... But there was NO WAY I could relax into this Rolfing thing as it was being done on ME!) ...
This, of course, flew in the face of what I had learned and applied with the NO Pain, MORE Gain approach. I did not believe the pain was necessary. And Ida Rolf and her Son had a reputation for being VERY aggressive in their bodywork. And a LOT of Rolfers believed they needed to do it "Ida's Way"!
And even though I had not yet gone Next Level with my own practice, I had worked with enough people to KNOW that NO Pain, MORE Gain was a much better approach for several reasons.
So I never got past the 2nd out of the 10 "Official" sessions with any of the five Rolfers due to the pain!
2.) Another issue was I did not want to learn a "Standard Recipe" or a "Routine" to perform mostly the same moves with all my Clients. Rolfing has their Standard Ten-Session Recipe that most Rolfers do as a matter of routine.
I think they used to say something like "We will take you apart in 7 sessions, and put you back together in 3 sessions."
Yet *I* wanted to be able to create, from Session #1, unique, tailored sessions for each Client with each session based on what they presented with at that moment in time.
I already knew the Slogan "One Size Fits NO One!" And I knew how DIFFERENT each Client's body and situation was. ... So learning Rolfing's Standard, 10-Session Recipe was NOT my idea of what I wanted to learn.
My approach was to assume I would only see a Client ONE TIME, and I needed to give them as complete an Experience as possible. So that was the level of knowledge I was looking for, NOT just a "To Do List" of One Size Fits All.
3.) Another and even Bigger thing was a married couple, of whom both were Rolfers, came to Chicago to teach a weekend workshop on Structural Integration (Rolfing®) at the Chicago School Of Massage Therapy. I attended their workshop, very much hoping I would learn how to better evaluate where to work and on what muscles, and when.
The workshop was nearing its end on Sunday late afternoon, and I was getting VERY frustrated. They did NOT provide ANY insight into my main question. Their techniques did not interest me much, as MY technique was already serving me VERY well as far as getting a muscle to Relax, Release & Let-Go.
So I asked, "How do you KNOW where to work & when?" The woman Rolfer was demonstrating an elbow technique on the back of someone on the table at the time. She hesitated, then said, "Well, you just sort of know."
I was VERY disappointed, almost shocked. THAT was a wholly inadequate answer to my question, as far as I was concerned. It was like the Poke & Hope Principle many therapists worked under in those days, and many STILL do. Just POKE in the muscles and HOPE something improves. But they did it with no real certainty about what a correct strategy would be.
So from that point on, I figured that if I went to Boulder and the Rolf Institute, it was VERY unlikely I would get the knowledge and insight I was looking for.
4.) As I have discussed more in-depth elsewhere on the website and my eBooks, I also did not believe in the idea that FASCIA, BY ITSELF, was anywhere NEAR a Prime Mover of the joints & bones.
Yet I believed I should be able to know enough about the anatomy & kinesiology of the muscles & bones to determine WHAT would happen when I released the tension in a specific muscle. I figured I should be able to design each session for the Client based on their unique needs at THAT moment ... NOT just "deliver a standard, 10-session recipe."
(To be fair, if you go to Advanced Rolfing Training, we are told you develop a wider range of skills beyond the 10-session Recipe. Yet a LOT of Rolfer's don't do that.)
When I was an ironworker foreman, we used plumb cables to pull steel structures around until every column was vertical, every beam was horizontal, and every corner was square. I assumed that in the human body, the bones were like the columns & beams, and the muscles & tendons were like the plumb cables.
This was not an exactly true analogy, but it was close enough.
But at that point, I did NOT know the medical sciences enough to adjust things and predict what would happen. Heck, I did not even know what "kinesiology" really was!
I was also learning, and understanding, that (in my opinion) the Rolfer's excessively high focus on fascia, and FAR less on muscle cells, was leading them to make very incorrect assessments about structural misalignments and distortions in a Client's body. They were getting overly focused on fascia, and almost ignoring muscles.
I have a few stories on that, but I'll save them for another time.
5.) As a result, they were rarely able, for example, to straighten a scoliosis because focusing on fascia often caused them to release the WRONG musculo-Fascial Units!
Fascia OR Muscle Cells in Scoliosis?
The UPPER two images show two views of a Double S-curve Scoliosis, the UPPER RIGHT side Illustration shows — ALLEGEDLY — that the FASCIA on the LEFT side of the LUMBAR region (Lower Back), in RED with Arrows, pulls the spine CONVEX on LEFT side, which also means CONCAVE on RIGHT side of the Lumbar spine.
The OPPOSITE occurs — ALLEGEDLY —in the Upper Back (thorax). The Fascia, in RED, on the RIGHT side pulls the spine CONVEX on the right, CONCAVE on the left.
That assumes FASCIA has the CAPACITY to SHORTEN a significant amount, enough to pull the spine very far out of alignment. Yet Fascia does NOT have much, IF ANY, contractile capacity [ meaning the ability to mechanically shorten ]. Fascia shortens primarily because of the Contractile Forces of the Muscle Cells, and secondarily dehydration. There are a few other minor factors that can cause the fascia to very slightly shrink or shorten, but not enough to go into here.
The LEFT side Illustration shows the GREEN muscles, shortening on the RIGHT of the Lumbar Region, pulling the spine CONCAVE on the Right, CONVEX on the left. The GREEN muscles on the LEFT side of the Thorax pull the spine CONCAVE on the LEFT, and CONVEX on the right.
Here, in the LEFT Illustration, the RED lines are MUSCLES that are lengthening but ALSO (paradoxically) STRONGLY CONTRACTING to resist the shortening of the GREEN muscles on the opposite side. The muscles on the LEFT Lumbar are also fighting gravity that is pulling the spine toward the right side.
It turns into a BATTLE. And everything in RED is usually what HURTS. But most Therapists work where the PAIN is, so everything they work on relaxes a little bit, and makes the curves and the problems even WORSE!
MUSCLES can shorten on average 150 to 200% of their resting length. FASCIA, with minimal contractile fibers, can BY ITSELF, shorten only VERY SMALL amounts. The PRIMARY JOB of the Fascia is to deliver the Contractile Power of the muscle cells to the bones & joints.
The primary reason Fascia gets "hard" is contracting MUSCLE CELLS increase internal hydrostatic (water) pressure inside of the muscle cells, which are contained by the deep fascial sheaths. The increased water pressure pushes outward against those fascial sheaths. That increased water pressure is what makes the musculo-fascial units feel stiff or hard. Sometimes as hard as a BONE!
When I showed the above Principles to a group of Fascia-Focused Practitioners (Rolfers, Hellerworkers) in a Seminar I taught in Venice Beach, California, they could not refute my points of view, and many of them changed the way they worked as a result.
6.) And this is probably the Biggest One. ...
I learned enough to know that the fascia is/was MOSTLY SENSORY in nature. Fascia has a very small percentage of MOTOR nerves, IF ANY. What motor nerves there ARE go to smooth muscle cells, which do not have much capacity to contact in a way that could significantly affect posture and movement AT ALL.
If there are very few motor nerves, that means the Client does not have the capacity to turn the tissues ON or OFF with their mind, like they can a skeletal, striated muscle, with some practice.
In a mindful yoga practice, you are in great part learning to turn your muscles ON & OFF AT WILL with your mind and nervous system. But there is little to nothing in the way of a mechanism to DO that with the fascia.
THAT means the Client is dependent on external means for getting their fascia to DO what the Client WANTS it to do. That would be things like self-massage, foam rolling, or going to the Rolfer or other fascia-focused practitioner.
*I* was ALL about getting the Client first-body, first-person internal control over their own body as fast as possible. It was about helping the Client discover and develop their own, independent, internal self-control of their muscle system.
TODAY I know that we CAN control our own fascia, but only indirectly by relaxing & contracting our muscle cells, which have a very big impact on the fascia.
7.) Earlier in her Life, Ida P. Rolf had been an advocate of Yoga. But later on, she decided yoga compresses the joints and decided to stop recommending it. This, of course, bothered ME.
I had personally been using yoga to successfully DE-compress joints, including MY joints! So in MY mind, YES, there WERE people who were compressing their joints with yoga. I even have an eBook I wrote about Yoga Injury Prevention including joint decompression that I should have installed on this website in the near future.
So in my mind, if Ida could not figure out how to teach or advocate for a form of yoga that did NOT compress the joints, there was something missing from her understanding of much of the physical yoga process, and how the human body worked.
Therefore, after all of that, I did not see how I could ever BE a Rolfer if I could not embrace some of its main, foundational principles.
Below is a description of my views on scoliosis in the context of what is the primary force causing scoliotic curves: is it primarily over-shortened muscles? Or over-shortened fascia?
Comments ()