Are Asymmetries Really So Bad?
First, I want to congratulate all of my coworkers who completed the Tough Mudder Tri-State 2011 race this weekend.
Sorry I missed this one, but it was worth it to see one of my favorite people in the world almost go into shock when she realized all of her best friends had made the trek to Boston from all over the country to surprise her on her 30th birthday with a weekend of food and festivities. It was a great time, and thank God MegaBus accepts reservation numbers or else I would’ve had to miss it on account of the fact that I somehow lost my bus ticket in the 30 seconds between when I was racing out of the cab and into the line for the bus…
Anyway, it was a bit hectic but I managed to make it there and back with everything else I brought except my T-shirt – which I figure I must have left in the bus bathroom after I changed into more appropriate dinner attire – and now I’m back and ready for another exciting week.
We’re supposed to have TVs installed today in the weight room at Columbia so that our athletes can see their body positions in their movements that we videotaped as compared to the ideal (illustrated by lines that signify the proper angles). That way, they can make the necessary adjustments and see their improvements over time. We’re pretty excited about the feedback this new technology will provide and the effects it will hopefully have on our athletes.
We also have another new addition providing us feedback: Some guy who calls himself a “structural integrationist.” He has this crazy idea that our athletes are imbalanced (no sh*t Sherlock!), and instead of worrying about body position, he thinks we should focus our training efforts on making them symmetrical instead.
Let’s just say this hasn’t gone over too well in our S&C department…
Now, don’t get me wrong: There’s ample evidence that GROSS asymmetries in the body can increase injury risk in sport. But how many symmetrical athletes have you seen? Check out Venus Williams’ arms in this picture:
The fact is, sports predispose their participants to asymmetries, and athletes come to rely on these asymmetries to excel at their games. Do we really think we should tell Venus to train her left arm harder than her right because there’s a noticeable size and strength imbalance between the two? I think not. If she did, she’d be a whole lot worse at tennis.
For non-athletes, it may be worthwhile to work out MAJOR asymmetries, but unless we intend to make everyone ambidextrous (a lofty goal at best), I think we need to accept that some degree of asymmetry is normal, acceptable and inevitable. I’m all for unilateral training and preventative measures that can help decrease injury risk, but most people have a dominant arm and leg that they’ll always naturally use more for certain tasks (throwing, kicking, writing, etc.) – so unless there’s pain or previous injury underlying an asymmetry, it doesn’t make much sense to spend valuable training time trying to fix it completely.
I’m tempted to tell Mr. Structural Integrity to prepare and eat his food with his non-dominant hand for the next six weeks and record the results (also with his non-dominant hand). When he can’t make out the scribbles that denote how many times he cuts himself and misses his mouth, maybe he’ll come to see the point.
Filed under: fitness commentary








Nice, I’m sure you and this guy are really going to hit it off. And for the record I am asymmetrical and plan to be that way while my L shoulder heals. The alternative of simply not using my right side to stay symmetrical is it of the question. Tell this guy to go to some other weekend seminar and get a new philosophy.
Many sports are of course asymmetrical and as suggested it is unlikely to be the most prudent task to attempt perfection in symmetry. Life itself is asymmetrical!!However gaining great biomechanical set up should surely be the advantageous goal for any athlete, sports person, exercise fan?
So if through training you could improve the way you were stacked up to move on the inside and a side effect of this were better symmetry would Mr Structural Intergrationist be correct?
What I mean by this is rather than symmetry being the focus it should be improving pelvic function, nerve mobility and joint mobility while reducing muscle spasm this could ‘naturally’ improve asymmetries while holding onto ‘strengths’ in technique.
What do you think?
Rach – I agree completely. Improved symmetry in the body is often a side effect of good training. In fact, when improving mobility, stability and movement is the goal, asymmetries should diminish. But using valuable training time to attempt to undo the imbalances created, reinforced and exploited in sport is not only a waste, but potentially detrimental to an athlete’s performance. Thanks for the comment!