Kelly Starrett

[Andrew Stagmer]

Was wondering if anyone in the GST community had heard of Kelly Starrett and his book "Becoming A Supple Leopard" and what you guys all thought of his Mobilty Wod stuff. I would really love to hear Coaches thoughts on him. Thanks.

[GoldenEagle]

(Previous Thread) Global Dehydration Test

 

(Previous Thread) What do we think of Kelly Starrett

[Murray Truelove]

Not as good as Kit Laughlin or Sommer and I find him a little annoying. I hear his book is very good though I wouldn't buy it myself.

[Craig Downey]

Kelly's stuff has helped me a ton. I use it before workouts for my stiff bits, and it improves my range of motion for my GB mobility. I highly recommend the book. 

Kit seems good too. His hand video has also helped me. 

[Timo Jankowski]

I bought and read his book some time ago. Didn't find it useful at all for my (our) kind of gst/bodyweight practice. Maybe as a lifter it holds some useful advice, it's definitely geared towards more "conventional" strength training.

 

His advice on proper standing and sitting posture ("always brace yourself/ 20% ab tension" etc.) struck me as particularly odd. Also his blatant ignorance of "recent" pain science is somewhat mind boggling. Not only but especially in that regard he's constantly getting a lot of very valid criticism from the physical therapy world. Just search his name on the somasimple.com forum for example and you will find plenty of threads about his stuff but hardly anything overly positive.

 

There is a critical but still balanced in-depth review from Anoop over at exercisebiology.com, if you're looking for a more fleshed-out answer: 

 

http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/becoming_a_supple_leopard_by_kelly_starrett_book_review/

[Craig Downey]

I disagree with this article. "He is literally taking your hand and walking you back to the dark ages of physical therapy of the 1950’s, when we used to believe pain comes from joint, tissues, bad posture and movement." 

I know that pain can come from bad posture and movement. Maybe not for everybody, but for most. Ask anyone with a desk job if they ever get sore after sitting hunched over in front of a computer all day. Proper posture and movement are key to letting your body work as it has evolved to be. 

[Jan Reipert]

The hate starrett receives blows my mind. I use a lot of his techniques and for me personally they work like a charm. In my gym there are at least two physiotherapists i know of that use his stuff too with their clients and they are equally excited.

[Timo Jankowski]

I disagree with this article. "He is literally taking your hand and walking you back to the dark ages of physical therapy of the 1950’s, when we used to believe pain comes from joint, tissues, bad posture and movement." 

I know that pain can come from bad posture and movement. Maybe not for everybody, but for most. Ask anyone with a desk job if they ever get sore after sitting hunched over in front of a computer all day. Proper posture and movement are key to letting your body work as it has evolved to be. 

I thought he made his point sufficiently clear. He doesn't outright refute this purely biomechanical perspective, but instead says in the following two paragraphs that this provides an "incomplete" picture and explains further:

 

 

The problem here is that these recommendations which are re-enforcing people’s belief that the pain comes from bad movement and posture are just exactly what modern pain science has shown to be the problem. The more you talk about biomechanics, joints and movements, the more you are raising the threat level in the brain and making the pain chronic. This is exact reason why current pain science involves educational sessions to change people’s belief about the role of their muscles and joint in pain. Just changing the beliefs about pain has been now shown to lower pain, disability score and improve ROM and movement

He also linked to another article of his about pain science/treatment and named another, much older one about posture which you can find here:

http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/correcting-posture-myth-or-reality/

Maybe this will help shed some more light on his stance in this review.

Also there is some good information on the whole "bad" posture debate in this very forum as well, I particularly liked this post from Cole Dano and the longer Mel Siff quote he shared a couple posts above (#12) 

https://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/topic/8258-rehab-for-kyphosisforward-head/?p=81159

[Mark Collins]

I regularly use his self mobilisation techniques with my patients. It works and is obvious to the patient as they feel better and move better. Patients do not care about the latest pain science. As long as they get results they are happy.

Kelly Starrett's work is better if you have a background in anatomy and human movement.

[TrojanHorse]

I've been using mobility WOD for about a year now and have seen great progress in certain aspect of my mobiility work thanks to Starrett.

[DarrenG]

Like another poster wrote - I am baffled by the Starrett hate shown. 

 

All I can say is his material completely improved my body.  I had a slew of old injuries and annoying issues that had built up over years of sports and working out, etc.  NOTHING has had as positive an effect on me as has Starrett's material.  No joke.  I was getting kind of depressed thinking I wouldn't never really be able to get back to being fully mobile and pain free from old shoulder and knee injuries and sure enough his material totally turned things around for me.

 

I'll have to read more about the latest views on pain and see how these views may conflict with Kelly's material.  I'm curious to explore that.

But from a pure effectiveness standpoint, I have never come across anything that has helped me so much.

[Jason Yamada-Hanff]

I haven't seen anyone argue that none of Starrett's material is useful or effective. If you love Starrett for the way his techniques have improved things for you, no one is trying to take that away from you. As I've said elsewhere, he is probably most responsible for the popularity of self-myofascial release techniques. That's to his credit, and those techniques appear to be more or less widely accepted as effective. 

 

The argument (at least my argument) is that some of Starrett's stuff is based in pseudo-explanations that have little to no support in fact (i.e. theory of maximum torque), that are not appropriate for all people (i.e. feet forward, knees out squat), and/or that fly directly in the face of the best current scientific understanding (i.e. your back pain is because you are standing wrong) or professional work in the field (i.e. all the parenthetical examples). He does all this without acknowledging that he is on uncertain ground, that his recommendations may not be right for everyone, and that other, sometimes more qualified, experts may disagree with him. That's a problem, especially considering his broad popularity. I haven't seen any good counterarguments that deal with these criticisms.

 

A bunch of people have come in with anecdotes about how his material has helped them. I have my own counter-anecdote, which is that I followed his techniques for a while and ended up with a bunch of new weird pains. I went searching for what I was doing wrong and how maybe I was incorrectly following his advice. I discovered the relatively large class of PTs and other movement experts/coaches who are calling BS on Starrett.

 

 

EDIT: I should add that, as far as I can tell, the myofascial release and rolling stuff is also mostly unproven and its not totally clear why it works when it does work. My personal experience is that focusing on the rolling/fascial aspect of mobility/flexibility was a mistake. Felt good immediately after, but the discomfort came back quickly. For my money, people like Dean Somerset, and Coach Sommer all make the balance between myofascial work and solving the root problem more clear than Kelly Starrett does.

[DarrenG]

Good points, yamad.

 

I did read Cole's post and read through the long discussion on the somasimple forum that he referenced. 

 

I only had time to get a general flavor of the anti-starrett viewpoint, at least as it was explained on the somasimple forum.  I'm sure I'm missing much of it at this point.

 

I would really like to get further insight on the topic, because, to be honest, I have a hard time buying into the seemingly agreed upon view on the somasimple forum.  There seems to be a conclusion that an individual's form should not really be questioned or tweaked, presumably because they are not absolutely scientifically certain that the form chosed by an athlete will lead to harm given their individual idiosycracies, etc., and/or they are not absolutely certain that the "fix" won't itself create harm.

 

Cerrtainly, this is very much counter to Kelly Starrett's approach.  My personal experience leads me to believe that a lot of harm can be prevented by avoiding some pretty standard known causes of injuries.  Heck, I think Coach Sommer and pretty much any other coach makes a point of describing "proper" form for exercises and movements.  This, I would assume, is based on years of experience observing and performing the movements so as to determine what is most effective and safest.  This is essentially anecdotal - not based on extensive scientific studies.

 

In fact, this is the aspect of Kelly's work that helped me the most.  I benefitted a great deal from his cues for shoulder stability, and also his cues for being sure the knees tend to track somewhat outwardly when squatting.  If I tend toward some external rotation torque as a general rule when squatting or performing pushups and some other pressing movements, I notice that my joints tend to track better and I am pain free.  I don't take it to extremes (his book shows squatting form that seems to me to have knees TOO far outward, etc.).  But the cues applied sensibly have made a world of difference for me, among other things he preaches.  Even postural cues seem helpful to me.  People often tend to slouch and get into positions that I think most would agree can be damaging - and often it is done out of laziness or lack of awareness.  Creating awareness to avoid known negative postures seems very sensible to me.  The most persuasive thing is the fact that his tweaks to my mechanics caused lots of pain to disappear.  Is this a cure all for any athletic movement?  Of course not, but to dismiss it seems wrongheaded.

 

In terms of movement mechanics, I just think many people can tend to have really lousy and dangerous form if not instructed.  I suppose I don't trust that we all have great natural instincts when it comes to movement.  In fact, I think with most people there is actually a substantial discrepency between a person's actual mechanics and what they THINK their mechanics are.  I think Cole had a similar example regarding some yoga practitioners having bent arms in a particular posture, all the while not realizing it.

 

I think having the shoulder joint "packed" and tight has helped me stay stable and pain free  as a general rule.  Having a general rule that my knees shouldn't collapse inward when squatting or landing has helped a great deal.  Being sure to brace my core and not arch or collapse my spine in certain movements has helped me.

 

The point that I can agree with is that there is no absolutely perfect "Form" that everyone should match precisely.  Obviously, each person is a bit different and there will likely and naturally be some unique differences in movement mechanics.  One size does not necessarily fit all.  So, to me a common sense approach seems effective.  If I am clear on what tendencies may be damaging over time, then I can tend toward a more effective and safe movement.

 

It seems that a counter argument is that tweaking mechanics may create problems precisely because a person may lack the mobility to safely attain the "proper" positioning.  The argument probably says that to the extent that  a person differs from "proper" form, it is precisely due to their unique limitations and natural tendencies.  However, Starrett seems to take a position that movements performed repeatedly with known deficiencies and bad mechanics (even if they feel more natural for a particular person) tend to break down the body and cause more injuries in the long term.  This matches my personal experience.  If "proper" form is not currently possible, I think the solution is to work on mobility and grow into the good mechanics rather than sticking with shoddy mechanics simply because it fits your current state of ability (or lack thereof).

 

It just seemed to me that the view espoused on the somasimple forum was taken to an extreme that didn't really ring true for me.  I appreciate scientifically tested feedback, but I question a person's unwillingness to heed time tested (if perhaps not yet scientifically tested) advice as to good mechanics.

 

I am open to being wrong in my assumptions and my conclusions.  It just seems from a logical and experiential standpoint Starrett's viewpoint seems to me to be more valid, at least if applied in a flexible and sensible manner.

 

As for the myofascial release and rolling stuff, I'm evidently not too hung up on whether we know exactly why it helps.  It has made a pretty extraordinary difference for me.  Maybe other approaches are even better, and I'm curious to explore them.  But nothing prior or since has actually impacted me as much.  That has to matter, imo.

[Jason Yamada-Hanff]

DarrenG, I can't speak to everything the people at Soma Simple believe, but I think you are misinterpreting their position as more extreme than it is. Listen to the Jason Silvernail interview here-- http://bretcontreras.com/pain-science-an-interview-with-pain-expert-jason-silvernail/-- and I think a lot of it will be cleared up.

 

The TL;DR version of that interview is the view that while mechanics obviously plays a role in the degree of stress placed on the body, privileging mechanics/posture/form/mobility as the main explanatory cause of injury and/or pain is woefully incomplete. I would be surprised if anyone at Soma Simple argued against form guidelines that encourage stability and discourage unnecessary stress on vulnerable structures. These are physical therapists and you can be sure they've seen their share of form-related injuries. They aren't saying mechanics is meaningless. They are saying the world is more complicated than that.

 

---

 

Starrett, on the other hand, is selling his biomechanics focus as the "ultimate guide to resolving pain, preventing injury, and optimizing athletic performance." There is a lot of reason to doubt that he has a valid explanatory model for how to achieve any of those three objectives.

 

One of the foundational aspects (comes first in the book) of the method is that you must relearn how to sit and stand, despite the weight of evidence that indicates posture is unrelated to pain/injury/athletic performance. He also says that "myofascial release" and mobilization works via ungluing/lengthening tissues, despite the weight of evidence that argues that when/if these methods are effective they are working through top-down neurological means because tissues *just don't work that way* (https://www.painscience.com/articles/does-fascia-matter.php).

 

He also says that he is teaching you to squat a particular way not so that you can be good and effective at squatting a lot, but because it is important to remodel your squatting-like movement pattern so that you can level up your general athletic performance. However, I have not seen any good evidence for his theory of a minimal vocabulary of human movements and movement pattern transfer. Now, of course, having enough ankle and hip flexibility to do the squat Starrett's way, along with the strength gains achieved through good squat training is very likely to help you in general movement. But that is a really different way to think about it than how Starrett motivates his methods. Yes, this is a knock against the CrossFit philosophy in general.

 

You may be thinking that 1) his methods have worked for you and/or your friends so Starrett is right QED, and/or 2) it doesn't matter if his explanatory model is wrong as long as you get the right result. As for (1), I would submit that you should entertain the possibility that are large part of how they are working is placebo. When they aren't placebo, they are probably working through a mechanism that is entirely different than what he is telling you.

 

As for whether it matters if his explanatory model is right, I'd say emphatically yes. We should be searching for *real* explanations for the way the world works. That view cashes out practically in at least three ways. First, even if it's not hurting you, maybe there is a better and more effective way to be spending your time/money/resources. Second, it can turn on you as a nocebo, convincing you that you need something in order to stave off pain/injury/whatever so that you actually do get real pain if you don't get your fake solution. Third, and most importantly, a bum explanation for how things work will fail you at some point and will lead you to behavior that is counter-productive.