In and Up

Chat and questions regarding Pilates or the "Introduction to the work of Joseph H. Pilates"
Post Reply
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:47 pm

In and Up

Post by AlainG »

"In and Up" has been the first thing that I´ve heard, many years ago, from Philippe Taupin (Romana´s lineage).

In my martial arts practice, I´ve came to a similar concept.
The so called "internal martial arts" are linked, in my understanding, to the ability to displace the visceral mass "in and up" (for "in" = to the back).
And as so, to stabilize the spine optimizing the transmission of force in the whole body.
It also requires a different intent when moving, like the intent of "moving inside" when applying force outside.

I know, Javier, that you say that Contrology is NOT a "core method".
And also, that there are scientific studies that show that "bracing of the core" can be counter-productive.
That the "core" should activate reflexively and according to the amount of force applied.
Do you endorse the saying "in and up", and if so, what does it mean to you?
Eventually, how different from the (various) core concepts?

For myself, I don´t use the core concept(s) even if the control of the visceral mass is important to me.
The dynamics encompass the "core" but also the periphery in reciprocal expanding, to the whole body, "in and up".
Perhaps that "in and up dynamics" is only useful under certain conditions, like when a more or less perpendicular resistance is applied to one´s body, and as so compromising one´s balance.
But perhaps detrimental under other conditions.
I don´t know.

Site Admin
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:38 pm

Re: In and Up

Post by Javier »

Hello Alain! Sorry for the huge delay.
In and up is like a "call to action": seeing Romana using it and her own stance when saying it renders its meaning clear and also removes the 'literal' translation.
She would often complain about how little people would understand her.
Yes, you do draw your stomach in to produce an up feeling -and no more, otherwise you end up with the opposite and shrink- but you did so engaging the rest of the body with an 'on' attitude to get yourself ready to do whatever you were going to do.

Enter now the anally retentive world that wants to know what muscles you use and their immediate effect in the vicinity of the muscle (i.e. the stomach) and they start, in their literal mode, just drawing their stomachs in and up. If the person listening to the instruction is not a natural mover or has some movement background they will also just do what they are told.

No body part is made to be used alone. So training body parts is as boring as it is unproductive and only results in unnatural unsightly movements.
"In and up" is a call to center your self: 'get ready to start', '5,6,7,8!", "ready, steady"... and yes it does mean engaging yourself, like 'pull up' in ballet. It is not a goal, nor a principle, nor an end on itself.

It is very tempting to think in terms of what does the stomach do to the spine or what happens to your intestines. Our modern forensic ways dissect what we do and anal-ize it too much. Killing the reason behind what we do, which produced the 'in and up' in the 1st place.

In any case, 'in and up' is but a split second preparation for what is coming. Like ballet, you always "Pull Up" but ballet is hardly about "pull up".

Poor trainers will have to use it often since they can't guide good movement, so they try to produce good movement by talking about body parts.

In the words of Romana: "I am not here to tell you to put your stomach in"... or after 20 min of silence in a session with a famous client: "how can correct you if you don't move"

There was no "powerhouse" or "core" with Joseph. Nor there should be. He would boil at the fact that people dismember themselves and their clients. But it is tremendously popular...

Post Reply