When planning a yoga sequence, there are many factors we can consider, like the peak pose, specific areas of the body we want to target, nervous system regulation, the placement of the sequence (warm-up, cool-down, or in between), etc. One factor that commonly influences our sequencing is the “pose/counterpose” rule. This rule states that specific yoga poses (or types of yoga poses) should always be followed by other specific – and opposite – yoga poses (or types of yoga poses).
For example, have you ever noticed that we often see fish pose (matsyasana) taught right after shoulderstand (salamba sarvangasana)? Or child’s pose (balasana) sequenced right after headstand (sirsasana)? Many teachers teach a forward fold right after a backbend. And after navasana, which works the hip flexors, it’s often stated that a pose that stretches the hip flexors should come next.
These pose/counterpose rules for yoga practice are widespread in the yoga world. I recently polled my social media audience, and 56% reported using pose/counterpose rules in their yoga teaching or practice. When I asked if these respondents could share their reason for using pose/counterpose rules, I received a variety of answers. Some people reported that they use these rules in their teaching simply because “they feel good.” Other people said they pair poses together in this way because that’s just how they were taught to sequence in their yoga teacher training.
But the most common explanation yoga teachers gave for teaching a pose followed by a counterpose had to do with the idea of “balance.” People said that pose/counterpose rules
-
“balance the body”
-
“keep everything even and aligned”
-
“complement the action that was done in the previous pose with an action with the opposite direction”
-
“bring the spine back to center/alignment”
-
“neutralize the spine”
-
“are important because if you open it, you have to close it”
The responses to this informal poll align with my experience in the yoga world in general: pose/counterpose rules are most commonly taught with the intention of keeping the body “balanced.” Today we’ll be taking a closer look at the notion of balancing the body in a musculoskeletal sense and whether aiming to restore muscle balance and postural alignment via movements like yoga poses is logical, given what movement science tells us about stretching, strengthening, and alignment.
HOW DO POSE/COUNTERPOSE RULES BALANCE THE BODY?
The big picture rationale for how pose/counterpose rules restore balance is that if the body moves in one direction, it should move in the other direction to reset things back to “neutral.”
On a more specific tissue-based level, pose/counterpose rules are also based on the idea that if we shorten a tissue via strengthening, that tissue will stay shortened unless we lengthen it back out with stretching. If we practice navasana and follow it with a pose that stretches our hip flexors, for example, the idea is that we balanced the hip flexors by first strengthening them and then stretching them.
This notion that yoga poses can pull our body out of balance in specific directions and that we need other specific yoga poses to restore balance is similar to some common societal beliefs about posture and alignment in daily life in general.
“CORRECTING” POSTURE WITH STRETCHING & STRENGTHENING
Have you ever heard the recommendation to stretch the pecs (chest muscles) and strengthen the rhomboids (upper back muscles) in order to fix rounded shoulder posture? (Because rounded shoulders are believed to be the result of a combination of “short” and “tight” pecs and “long” and “weak” rhomboids?)
Or perhaps you’ve heard that it’s important to stretch the hip flexors and strengthen the abdominals and glutes in order to correct an anterior pelvic tilt. (Same idea: the hip flexors are believed to be short and tight and the abdominals and glutes long and weak in someone with anterior pelvic tilt.)
These ideas are similar to yoga’s pose/counterpose rules. In both cases, the body is thought to be imbalanced in a certain direction, and to restore balance, one should stretch/strengthen in the opposite direction.
This approach to the body and movement might seem sensible on a superficial level, but once we begin to examine the purported mechanisms at play here, we start to see that these ideas lack scientific support.
STRETCHING DOESN’T LENGTHEN OUR TISSUES
The first half of the “stretch the pecs/strengthen the rhomboids” formula for changing shoulder posture relies on the assumption that stretching muscles lengthens them from end to end. However, this assumption is wrong: our muscles don’t grow longer from attachment point to attachment point as the result of stretching!
Flexibility is a complex variable that can be influenced by many factors, including stretch tolerance, the stretch reflex, joint arthrokinematics, nervous system upregulation and downregulation, passive resistance torque, and more. While stretching can affect the mechanical properties of our tissues, it doesn’t increase flexibility by physically lengthening our muscles out from end to end.
And to take another conceptual step back, the assumption that the pecs in rounded shoulder posture are physically tight (i.e. they can’t lengthen) in the first place is also unsupported! Research has looked at individuals with and without rounded shoulders and found that those with rounded shoulders had just as much pec flexibility as those with “ideal posture.”
In a nutshell, this suggests that we can’t tell how flexible someone’s muscles are just by looking at their posture. Rounded shoulders don’t mean that someone’s pecs are inflexible. And likewise, someone who presents with an anterior pelvic tilt doesn’t necessarily have tight, inflexible hip flexors.
If stretching doesn’t lengthen our muscles from end to end and if postural patterns don’t tell us how flexible muscles are in the first place, is the common belief that stretching can change posture plausible?
STRENGTHENING DOESN’T SHORTEN OUR TISSUES
The second half of the “stretch the pecs/strengthen the rhomboids” formula for changing shoulder posture assumes that the rhomboids are long and weak. Therefore, the solution is to strengthen the rhomboids so they shorten up and end up pulling our shoulders back into an optimal position.
Once again, this idea might seem to make sense on the surface, but upon examination, we realize that it lacks sound reasoning. Strengthening muscles doesn’t actually make them short and tight. In fact, when we strengthen muscles through their full range of motion, this can surprisingly increase our flexibility just as efficiently as passive stretching alone can!
Additionally, the assumption that the rhomboids are long and weak in rounded shoulder posture is also unsupported. How can we tell by looking at someone’s static posture, which is in no way a demonstration of the maximum force muscles can produce, whether a muscle is strong or weak? Wouldn’t we need to perform an actual strength test to measure a muscle’s strength? For example, finding out how much weight the rhomboids could lift or measuring their force output using a dynamometer would be two ways to test their strength.
Strengthening muscles doesn’t actually make them short and tight. In fact, when we strengthen muscles through their full range of motion, this can surprisingly increase our flexibility just as efficiently as passive stretching alone can!
And if the rhomboids were found to be weak, how would strengthening them (training them to produce a higher level of force) ensure that they would pull the shoulders back further in one’s daily life posture, which is a task that has much more to do with muscle endurance and the choice to hold the body in that position than muscle strength anyway?
If strengthening doesn’t shorten our muscles and if postural patterns don’t tell us how strong muscles are in the first place, is the common belief that strengthening can change posture plausible?
POSTURE IS CONTROLLED BY THE NERVOUS SYSTEM
Luckily for us, scientific research has explored these exact questions. A systematic review (Hrysomallis 2001) took a thorough look at studies on realigning posture through exercise and reported the following:
“A review of the literature has found a lack of reliable, valid data collected in controlled settings to support the contention that exercise will correct existing postural deviations. Likewise, objective data to indicate that exercise will lead to postural deviations are lacking. It is likely that exercise programs are of insufficient duration and frequency to induce adaptive changes in muscle-tendon length. Additionally, any adaptations from restricted range-of-movement exercise would likely be offset by daily living activities that frequently require the body segments to go through full ranges of motion.”
This same author performed a follow-up systematic review in 2010 with similar conclusions.
Once we understand that stretching and strengthening exercises don’t change posture (and that static posture doesn’t tell us whether specific muscles are flexible, tight, strong, or weak to begin with), we can start to let go of the idea that common posture patterns that we see are the result of tight muscles pulling on bones and long, weak muscles allowing those bones to be pulled.
These oversimplified ideas about posture would have us believe that our muscles are like inanimate pieces of clay that just need to be pulled a little longer here (stretched) and pushed a little shorter there (strengthened) in order to reset the entire body back to an ideal of “balance.” But posture is much more complex than that!
Our nervous system is what sets the resting tone of our muscles and therefore creates our posture. Our muscles are actually completely subservient to the nervous system; muscles don’t contract and relax on their own behalf.
Therefore, if we’re interested in changing our posture, instead of using specific stretching and strengthening formulas that target muscles, a better idea would probably be to employ strategies that communicate with the nervous system. One example might be to set a timer on your watch. When the timer goes off, check in with how you’re holding your body throughout your day and make any adjustments you feel would be helpful. The idea would be that if you did this regularly enough over time, you might eventually reset your nervous system’s default postural pattern for your body.
DO WE EVEN NEED TO CHANGE OUR POSTURE, THOUGH?
Apart from how we can change our posture, a much larger and inherently fascinating topic to dive into is the question of whether it’s even important to change posture at all. How important is posture for a healthy, well-functioning, pain-free body? I actually dive into this topic and present an abundance of insights from scientific research in a brand new continuing education workshop here on my website: Alignment, Posture, and Yoga: A Modern Approach.
Join me for this 2.5-hour workshop any time. It counts for CE hours through Yoga Alliance and will help you hone your ability to think scientifically. In the workshop, we focus on the specific subject of alignment and posture and its relevance for yogis. And the critical thinking skills I introduce can prove valuable in many other aspects of our life, as well.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOGA POSE/COUNTERPOSE RULES?
What would happen if we abandoned pose/counterpose rules? Would students be left with imbalanced bodies on a musculoskeletal level? The research on stretching, strengthening, and alignment doesn’t point to that eventuality.
Granted, it’s just fine to use these rules if you appreciate the way these yoga pose pairings feel in your body. Or maybe the fact that they’re part of the yoga teaching tradition you’ve inherited, and that’s important to you. But we should realize that these rules aren’t necessary for musculoskeletal balance or health.
Contrary to what’s taught in many yoga teacher training programs, the human body isn’t so fragile that a backbend not followed by a forward fold will result in an exploded spine. 🙂 If this has been the main reason you’ve been using pose/counterpose rules, you might consider broadening your approach to include more options and possibilities in your sequencing!
REFERENCES
What would happen if we abandoned pose/counterpose rules? Would students be left with imbalanced bodies on a musculoskeletal level? The research on stretching, strengthening, and alignment doesn’t point to that eventuality.
Afonso, José, et al. “Strength training is as effective as stretching for improving range of motion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” (2021).
Hrysomallis, Con. “Effectiveness of strengthening and stretching exercises for the postural correction of abducted scapulae: a review.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.2 (2010): 567-574.
Hrysomallis, Con, and Craig Goodman. “A review of resistance exercise and posture realignment.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 15.3 (2001): 385-390.
Sawyer, Quinton Leroy. Effects of forward head rounded shoulder posture on shoulder girdle flexibility, range of motion, and strength. Diss. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2006.
