WHETHER or not we are conscious of it, it is nevertheless a fact, that in the course of our daily activities, if we live a normal life, we receive the benefit of natural exercises - those performed in every movement we make. These very necessary functional activities, experienced by one living a normal life, preclude all necessity for undertaking artificial exercise of any kind.
It is really a rank falsity to believe that one cannot be both strong and healthy without having first to indulge in more or less violent training "stunts," but unfortunately this erroneous concept is so firmly entrenched in the minds of the general public, that it would probably require the omnipotent power of a deity to dispel this universally accepted nonsense from their minds.
However, in order that one may receive the maximum benefit and resulting normal health from one's daily activities, one should understand at least some of the more rudimentary underlying principles governing the mechanism of the human body in motion, rest and sleep. For example, the leverage possibilities of the bones composing its skeletal framework, the range and limitation of proper muscle tension and relaxation, the laws of equilibrium and gravity, and last but not least, how to inhale and exhale; i. e., how to breathe properly - normally. A knowledge of these are essential if we are to benefit from any exercises.
Since the public seemingly is either uninformed or misinformed with reference to these principles, they cannot of necessity benefit by them, which fact is only too self-evident when one, who is himself thoroughly versed in the knowledge of physical education, measures humanity in terms of normal health. If this knowledge were universally disseminated and the system advocated for its propagation, universally adopted both laymen and professionals, as well as by the properly constituted health authorities in particular, what a splendid human race we would see.
Again, the simple truth is repeated, that one may both attain and maintain perfect (normal) health without resorting to the expedient of artificially exercising the body. This statement seems to be fully substantiated when one observes the perfection of physical form, strength, grace, agility, endurance, health and longevity in the animal kingdom. With man it is just to the contrary.
Has the natural exercise instinctively indulged in by such "life" anything to do with the uniform attainment and maintenance of their ideal physical condition, as reflected in their natural beauty and normal health? Has the indulgence of artificial exercise advocated by man for man, anything to do with the uniform failure of his attainment to even reach much less maintain a similar degree of ideal physical condition, as is reflected in his natural beauty and normal health?
Would animal life benefit by exchanging instinct for man’s ability to think? Or, would man benefit by exchanging ability to think for the animal's instinct?
Judging from an impartial study of their respective physical conditions, one must admit that were animals and men respectively to interchange their instinct and ability to think, that the animals would have bargained their birthright away for a "mess of pottage," while man would have gained immeasurably by the exchange, at least to the extent of physical perfection.
Did you ever hear of an animal gymnasium conducted by animals for animals, for the purpose of gratifying their desire or need for artificial exercising?
Is it not true that animals in their natural state and in their natural habitat exercise naturally as a matter of course?
Do animals understand natural laws and govern themselves accordingly?
The answer is "yes" because instinct unerringly guides all living creatures including man himself.
Have you ever closely and thoughtfully observed the movements of a newly-born babe? If you have studied animal life at all, you will have been impressed by the fact that so far as physical actions and movements are concerned, animals are men and men are animals. You see that in the movements of a new-born baby.
Both animals and men move their bodies in every and all possible directions - freedom of bodily action is paramount. This constant desire for change in movement in babies is only a manifestation of one of the many fundamental laws of nature - the law of action - which animals and human beings obey alike, if unhampered.
Natural instinct prompts mothers of the animal kingdom to permit nature to "take its course" as long as the lives of their offspring are not in danger. However, if one of the members of their sometimes rather large families seems to be inclined to laziness and disinclined to "play," its mother will not hesitate to force it to move about so that its muscles may be properly developed and strengthened through increased circulation of the blood. She will go even to the extent of grasping the "culprit" by its neck in her mouth and shaking and dropping it repeatedly on the ground until the lazy one responds to the hint. Have you ever watched a cat and her kittens or a dog and its litter?
How differently does the human mother act!
Instead of permitting infants and growing children the opportunity freely to obey their natural "instinct," as evidenced by their desire for action - constantly turning around, grasping for and holding on to objects within their reach, stretching and bending their little bodies, arms and legs; creeping on the floor and playing in the sand or on the grass until their little muscles tire naturally, and then fall into a healthy sleep as intended by another law of nature, the fond mothers literally stuff their offsprings' stomachs with food to overflowing capacity, and then "pack" their tender bodies in bandages after first (wholly unintentionally and solely through ignorance or misinformation on the subject) cruelly locking the joints of their hips and knees. In order to pacify their resulting crying protests against this rather inhuman treatment, the mother next proceeds to rock the child to sleep. Is it a natural sleep they thus get? No, the little innocents are either nauseated or half unconscious or both when they finally fall asleep from mere exhaustion.
How differently acts the dumb animal mother from the human mother!
The animal mother feeds her young ones as indicated by her instinct. Then she permits them to fall asleep, allowing them to assume their natural positions usually against her own warm body, which not only afford the little ones the necessary bodily resistance required for their complete comfort, but also gives them the benefit of the healthful magnetism of the mother's own body, an essential and vitally important factor in the welfare and well being of her offspring.
No college education is needed to understand what these remarks are meant to convey; namely, to observe what the "seeing" eyes see and to use common sense in the bringing up of our children. If only a very small fraction of the time and money now spent on research work were spent in the study of the many violations of the laws of nature for educational purposes, how much more would life be enjoyed and appreciated than it is possible to enjoy and appreciate life at the present time?
One understanding the subject-matter of this discussion may be pardoned for taking the liberty of discussing matters which are usually discussed only by scientists and doctors with degrees. Every free-born man endowed with common sense blessed with idealism, and prompted by humanitarian motives, instinctively feels it to be his duty to "cast his bread" (his own knowledge) "upon the waters" so that his brethren who may still believe in the observance of the ethical laws governing human intercourse, may benefit thereby.
Everyone is invited - no one is barred - to follow those in search of right and wrong and form his own opinion accordingly. In this instance, one begins his journey for knowledge, tracing it from boyhood to middle and old age, with the idea of testing the truth of these statements.
The child we left innocently sleeping in its cradle is now wide awake and lying on its little back, but, believe it or not, without the barbarous bandages, and with its hunger already satisfactorily appeased, it is enjoying the liberty of complete freedom in legs, arms and body improvements.
Isn't it strange that now, for some reason or other, we feel the same child unhampered by the bandages previously applied to securely lock its hips and knees when it was first put to sleep?
Most people seem to think that bandaging the lock hips and knees of sleeping and resting children is absolutely necessary in order that the legs may grow straight. What folly!
One never heard of animals resorting to this or similar artificial means for stretching the legs of their growing young and neither do we find savages resorting to such devices. Furthermore, since barring accident, we find the average savage and the average animal in nature in normal physical condition, blessed with well-proportioned bodies, and bow-legs, knock-knees, and double curvature of the spine conspicuous by their absence, we must reach the logical conclusion that the deformities children ordinarily suffer have been brought on by the terrible treatment they received as a baby.
If the reader has the ambition and patience to follow this discussion to its eventual conclusion, he might ultimately be convinced that adherence to this time-worn tradition of bandaging the child's body is really one of the first of the many bad habits which ignorant parents force upon their helpless children, a condition for which the health authorities are responsible.
The average normal unhampered child in attempting to gratify its perfectly natural desire for muscular movement, will naturally assume the so-called "spread-eagle" position, constantly stretching and bending its arms and legs, lifting its head up and down, and turning from left to right and vice versa. If left undisturbed, it manifests supreme contentment and keen joy, but after a more or less prolonged period of this state, it will begin to manifest evidence of uneasiness and unhappiness which condition if unrelieved, will bring on a crying spell. Then, if the cries are unheeded. the child will become exhausted, unless the parents intercede and change it to another position which the child is not strong enough to assume by itself.
Practically nine out of every ten mothers will confidently tell you that the reason the child cried was because it wanted to be carried in the arms, and this explanation seemingly is partly true, at least, because the child immediately ceases crying when its tiny legs are resting against its mother's body.
However, that is but another popular fallacy that needs to be exploded.
Why does the child really cry?
The correct answer to this question is quickly and definitely ascertainable. All that is necessary is for the experimenter to lie on his back in the same position as that assumed by the child and make the same movements for a period ranging from only 20 to 40 minutes, whereupon he will know what happens and then he will know why the child is restless and cries.
As it is, no one really seems to know what happens, otherwise this cruelty would have been abandoned long ago.
However, if the child were lying in a normal bed - one designed in conformance with the fundamental principles underlying and governing the anatomical balance of its bony structure - it could lie for hours at a time in any given position without experiencing any undue strain. Lacking the advantage inherent in such a scientifically designed and constructed bed, its position must, of necessity, from time to time, be changed, first from one position, then to another, so that if the child is found crying while resting on its back, the crying will immediately cease if it is turned to rest on its stomach and vice versa.
This change of position is now absolutely necessary for the child's comfort and if these changes be made at more or less frequent intervals, they will materially assist the child in the performance of its natural exercise, so essential and vitally important to its proper development. This procedure makes for the child's contentment and happiness and permits it to grow up strong and healthy.
Another form of mistreatment of young children is that of forcing them to sit quietly in a chair in a right angle (upright) position. What it really means to sit quietly in our modern dining room, kitchen and other chairs, for even only a comparatively short period of time, is something that those conducting our research laboratories have evidently failed to personally ascertain, for if they had, they certainly would have relegated the present type of chairs to limbo centuries ago and advocated the construction of the chairs which I have invented and recommend.
I challenge any person to sit quietly, free from all movements, for one hour in any modern chair. You'll soon learn what it means to the child. The muscles have become so cramped and numbed, that they are no longer sensitive to feeling. No one could really rest in such a position, because the position itself is a most unnatural one. For the naturally correct position, assuring the maximum amount of rest and comfort, it is suggested that one look around and watch the position that children naturally assume when they are left alone.
Does one naturally assume uncomfortable positions? Assuredly not. Then why not permit the child to "squat" on the floor, Turkish-fashion, American-Indian, Japanese and savage fashion, which position is at one and the same time natural, comfortable and healthful.
Children at this young age prefer and enjoy sitting on the floor, moving around bear-fashion on "all-fours" or creeping on their hands and knees, all of which develop the larger muscles of their backs, legs, stomach and shoulders.
Proud (and unintentionally cruel) parents, seriously interfere with and disrupt this natural course of bodily development by forcing the children to start walking or standing upright before their muscles have been sufficiently developed properly to support their weight and before they have the mental capacity to control their equilibrium in movement. Normal children require no parental instruction or help in this direction, for the simple reason that if they are left to themselves, they will naturally keep on learning and trying until they are able, not only to stand in an upright position without falling, but also until they have acquired the ability to walk by themselves.
To force children to follow any other procedure than this natural one, no matter how well-intentioned, is detrimental to the best interests of their health. Curvature of the spine, bow-legs, knock-knees, faulty posture and later on flat feet, are directly traceable to these mistaken ideas. They have their origin in the deplorable ignorance of their fond but ignorant parents.
How much more common sense or natural instinct have dumb animals?
How entirely different is their method of "bringing up" their young ones?
How much fun can we have simply by watching the animal mother especially of the cat family, giving a lesson in physical culture to her offspring?
What a lesson she can teach us!