It's "no-duh" that yoga can hurt you. But what makes the exercise particularly dangerous is that people go into it because it is seen as a recuperative, healing exercise. And the nature of it makes it easy to get into and possibly go too far.
Compare it to swimming, which is also seen as a recuperative exercise. But in swimming, it is very difficult to accidentally over-exert yourself...you'll get too tired. So the danger of someone who is completely out of shape going too far is minimal. However, in yoga, it is very easy to go too far because just entering or holding (what seemed easy to get into) the poses may overstrain a muscle or joint.
And let's not discount the mindset of many yoga practitioners, novice and expert. Swimming may be a healing sport, but it has the connotation of being a sport. Yoga is seen as not just a physical activity, but as a way to connect spiritually, be at inner peace, and not worry about competition (even if it implicitly happens, as demonstrated in the article). So there is additional danger is in the naive mindset of yoga practitioners...comparatively few people go into long-distance running with the belief that it won't have impact on their knees or back.
* Another way to look at it...speaking from personal experience...there is a high correlation between people who are really into yoga and people who are really into doing periodical "cleanses"...that is, diets in which they spend $200 (no exaggeration) for three days of juice-only servings. This may also be a peculiarity of living in Manhattan...yet I know of other athletes in the city who would never consider doing a juice-diet, or who believe in the "science" of cleanses.
The point is is that yoga attracts people who want a less rigorous way of being healthy, and these people may not realize that yoga can be as damaging as standard weightlifting.
It's still crazy to me how exhausting swimming can be. It probably doesn't help that I tend to sink like a rock so I have to work harder; even so, it's such a simple motion one would think it isn't that great of a workout, but it definitely is. And it just goes to show that people don't need all these fancy workouts, machines, ranges of motion (like yoga) to get in great shape. Just do what feels natural, like your body's meant to do.
I've been thinking about finding a nearby place to swim regularly but the only place nearby is the YMCA, and from what I recall as a kid, the pool isn't exactly clean.
As for yoga, I've done P90X a couple of times and for those that don't know, according to Tony Horton, yoga's an essential part of working out. But something about it never really sat right with me, and reading the other comments here has helped me pinpoint why. When I would do yoga, the first few times I'd make it through the entire hour and a half (first 45 minutes were various Ashtanga Vinyasa sequences; last 45 minutes were balances/stretches) and the last half always made me really uncomfortable. I told myself it would get better once I got used to it, but after a few weeks it didn't get any less uncomfortable so I just stopped doing the stretches/balances; and if anything, I'd bet this this actually helped with my overall fitness. When I was balancing on my neck/shoulders and putting my legs behind me, I remember thinking every time, "How can this possibly be good for me?" Lo and behold, I wasn't alone. These days when I do yoga, I just do my own thing (whatever feels natural) and it seems to work pretty well because I usually have sweat dripping off of me by the end.
> "and from what I recall as a kid, the pool isn't exactly clean."
Sad but true, but any pool that isn't horrifyingly exclusive is going to be the same way. I spent years swimming competitively and have had the plantar warts (and the treatments) to show for it.
> "It probably doesn't help that I tend to sink like a rock so I have to work harder"
This is the wrong way about it. If you have trouble staying afloat, or moving forward, swimming harder will just tire you out and make you sink more - you need to swim smarter and with better technique. Swimming is really quite effortless if you've got decent technique. Flailing about in the water will tire you out quickly, and from an exercise perspective isn't as effective as simply going a couple of miles with good form.
I suppose a good analogy would be an untrained runner deciding to simply sprint his heart out - he's going to run out of juice pretty quickly, feel horrible, and not get as much exercise as if he'd paced himself.
It's a great technique and I improved vastly, but I've spent maybe between 100 and 200 hours practising (rough estimate) and I still can only swim between 50 and 100 m before I run out of breath.
And I'm still sinking like a rock. There's an exercise we do, exhale and submerge, and sit on the bottom of the pool. Every instructor does it with some effort, so much is their buoyancy, but that's the one where I shine.
And I know my problem, every instructor tells me - I have to be more relaxed. Well, except that I can not tell myself to relax and just do it - somehow it's a long and slow process, and so far I don't see the way to learn 'relaxing' quickly and effortlessly.
There was no quick fix, I just swam twice a week for years until (a) my muscles became more used to the exercise and (b) I learnt to relax and enjoy it.
I've found that not kicking at all and focussing purely on the arm movements helped a lot.
In fact, I swam 2km yesterday without kicking at all.
I'm trying to kick as little as I possibly can, as in 2-beat kick. But I don't have years of practise, so if I try to swim without kicking at all, I'd just start sinking very, very soon. :)
Swimming skill and the learning ability somehow does not correlate with things like fitness, strength, flexibility or even coordination - I practise a martial art and weight training, my body is much better developed compared to an average person ... ON LAND. But in the water - everyone, no matter how old or large or stiff - progresses faster and swims better ... that's frustrating and motivating at the same time.
Swimming is only seen as recuperative by people who never swam seriously. Most competitive swimmers have experienced shoulder tendinitis, and there are many other joints under stress: ankles, elbows, neck, knees. The masters swimmers I know are very mindful of not overdoing their training intensity and volume.
As you rightly pointed out, Yoga attracts people who want a less rigorous way of being healthy.
Ironically Yoga was created as one of the most disciplined arts and was hand in glove with nerve-wrecking penance. That's what most people who want to do yoga miss nowadays, they don't really know what it was for , they just get into it because it's easy, and that ends up being a big mistake because it was made to not be easy.
Also funnily enough, even if people practice yoga on their own, it was developed with the inherent fail-safe of body pain in mind, so it wouldn't harm them. However nowadays you have expert teachers who push you beyond your body's limits and that's truly dangerous.
So to sum up, if you want to get into Yoga, get a good book and do it on your own.
OR
Make sure you find a really really good teacher and do a thorough check before joining a class, and don't just enter into a Yoga program on a whim.
Those are the only two ways I see to stay safe, and still benefit from learning Yoga.
Wow.. NO NO NO, DO NOT do it on your own at first. The second tip however, find a good teacher is a MUST..
Doing yoga by yourself with no experience and just a book and no one to help you understand proper alignment in your foundation poses at first is a great way to hurt yourself at worst, or get nothing out of the effort at best.
Which is why I said get a good book. As I said earlier Yoga was designed with a fail-safe (although I cannot cite references right now). Unless you just trudge through the discomfort in your body, you will not get hurt doing it on your own.
Sorry but this is false. Sensing pain can mean it's already too late and damage is already occurring.
Would you learn to fly a plane from a book? "When you are upside down in a flat spin, you may be in trouble"..
Get a good teacher who can guide you through the foundation alignments and do hands-on adjustments when you are starting out. A book can certainly help but it can't be your only guide.
Pain isn't necessarily a bad thing and doesn't necessarily mean 'damage is already occurring'.
If you are remotely in touch with your own body and athletic you can teach yourself yoga from books/youtube/podcasts. The best progress I had doing yoga was when I was living in Taiwan and 90% of the class was in Mandarin (which I don't speak). It caused me to focus more and listen to my body.
The problem is that you can't tell that you're doing a posture wrong by looking at yourself (even in a mirror) or by how it feels. Beginners really need the guidance of someone with experience who can look at their postures and help them get them right.
Okay, so let me be a bit clearer.
This is the advice I got from a hermit who has been practicing Yoga for 22 years, and teaching for 14.
He specifically told me that initially Yoga (particularly Hatha Yoga) is meant to help you with your everyday postures, such as standing and sitting, and breathing correctly.
That part is easy, but it requires practice. The Yoga postures are not really the essence of Yoga for a beginner. It's only the correction of your everyday postures. That is what I said should be done alone, from a book. That is what the body can handle, and you will not be hurting yourself. Again, this is truly expert advice, and you may follow it if you feel it is.
The hard part of Yoga is undoubtedly dangerous to pursue alone, but even more dangerous to pursue with a teacher who does not know what he/she is doing. So, even though this seems like a Kobiyashi Maru, I would advise finding a really good teacher first, and if that doesn't work, and you really have to do Yoga (for whatever reasons) you're better of doing it on your own, with instructions from a really good book. By no means do I say doing it alone should be your first option.
Your basing your thoughts on the perception that 'yoga is gentle and easy.' This is farther from the truth: There is a spectrum. Most yoga people actually start out with are the more vigorous forms.
Starting on your own is a generally a bad idea, unless you have a friend who is experienced and can help you properly understand positioning. There's some very proper positioning you need to know to avoid injury, or creating weakness / going farther than you should initially, and everyone's body is different. There is no one book that will not have excess information than what a beginner needs to know.
DO NOT learn yoga from a book. Your body will follow the path of least resistance and trick you into doing asanas incorrectly. That's a major way people get injured or at the very least don't get full benefits from their practice. It is essential you find a teacher that knows what (s)he's doing.
"The naturalistic fallacy", sometimes with a dash of "argument from antiquity".
I think Yoga is more subject to this than some other forms of exercise, except maybe running. When you're wobbling around on top of a bicycle or have strapped yourself to a plank of wood on a mountain side, I hope something in your head tells you you're doing something unnatural. But a lot of people tend to take the line of argument that exercise is NATURAL is GOOD is SHUT UP.
Just because something is passed down through the ages or "natural" to humans doesn't make it _good_. It just makes it _old_. Something being practiced for hundreds or thousands (or in the case of running, hundreds of thousands) of years may give something a baseline plausibility that makes it worth investigating, but it itself is not scientific evidence.
Many people have run regularly over the years and most of them didn't instantly burst into flames, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities. Just because yoga is considered "ancient wisdom" doesn't mean we shouldn't test it rigorously and without preconceived notions of its efficacy or inefficacy.
Science is the only way to distinguish ancient wisdom from ancient hogwash; anecdotes and arguments only confirm pre-existing biases.
"Many people have run regularly over the years and most of them didn't instantly burst into flames, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities."
Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that "we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities"?
To your list of fallacies you should perhaps add the strawman argument.
"Just because yoga is considered "ancient wisdom" doesn't mean we shouldn't test it rigorously and without preconceived notions of its efficacy or inefficacy."
Another strawman.
"Science is the only way to distinguish ancient wisdom from ancient hogwash; anecdotes and arguments only confirm pre-existing biases."
Is this a "scientifically proven claim"? Or is this just an expression of a "pre-existing bias"?
Those are not strawmen, those are called examples. What he's saying is that "naturalness" or "antiquity" does not mean that something shouldn't be tested. For example, running is obviously very natural and old, and that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tested.
So:
>Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that "we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities"?
just reinforces his point, because it was meant to be a statement that everyone could easily agree with.
Pre-existing bias towards testing and researching in order to approach the truth is a virtue, and to dismiss it while simultaneously attacking by misusing the tools of reason and logic that are its fruits when it is situationally convenient to you is both silly and entirely dishonest.
In the weight training community, yoga is seen as problematic because it involves a lot of spinal flexion (ie bending the spine forward). This is seen as a general no-no (which is why sit-ups are generally viewed as bad as well today).
Stuart McGill is often quoted in these matters, as he has done extensive studies on the mechanics of the spine.
I'm not an expert on Yoga by any means, but in all the classes I've taken (and with the exception of the "relaxation" poses), the instructors have emphasized maintaining a straight back. Spinal flexion hasn't been explicitly encouraged, unless (perhaps) it was in the context of a forward fold, where the goal is to relax the muscles of the back after some other strenuous exercise.
Also, reading through your links, the McGill fellow seems to have a fairly nuanced position on core strength. It's not as simple as "don't bend the spine forward".
Those poses show spinal extension, not flexion. It may be the GP was using the wrong word here. I've never seen a yoga class that focused on spinal flexion, but there are a lot of poses that extend the spine, and if done wrong they can cause injury. Most yoga teachers know this, though, and encourage students not to over-extend, either by keeping abdominals active as you describe, or by focusing the extension on the mid- and upper-back rather than the lumbar.
On an only slightly related note, why doesn't gecko spell checker recognize flexion?
I'm also not an expert, but in the classes I've taken (gentle yoga and basic yoga), the instructors almost always guide us in poses that involve "spinal rotation."
Exactly. People don't understand that many of the yoga stretches are actually making them more flexible in a way that can lead to injury. A person should want their lower back to be strong and rigid (see planks and dead lifts as an exercises) and their upper back to be flexible. Every time I see someone doing yoga and really bending their lower back it makes me cringe.
Someone who knows more about anatomy than anyone I've ever met once said to me: "Half of all yoga poses are great if done correctly, and half of them should never be done by anyone." He mentioned the pigeon pose as a particular instance of a pose that may feel like it's "opening you up" but which, if you're doing it perfectly, is stretching something (hip ligaments) that don't need to - and shouldn't - be stretched.
EDIT: Downvoter, if you know otherwise, please educate me!
Why is there an appendix? Obviously the back is flexible to allow freedom of movement, but that doesn't mean a person should pick things up by rounding their lower back or make it more flexible. Another point is that nature did not make humans in order to have them sit in desks all day. In particular read the t-nation links in the OP.
I spend 15 mins or more of each workout combating the detrimental effects (incorrect pelvic tilt, shoulder impingement and rotation, etc...) of sitting at a desk most of the day.
To be honest, I have a friend who trains athletes (some pros like NFL, NBA) and he helped me out. You can look up many of the exercises using Google, but I would suggest finding a good trainer in your area and spending a couple hours with him/her. A couple hours working out with my friend help me understand what each movement should feel like, which was a big difference between doing it correctly and incorrectly. After that it's pretty easy to do by yourself, and most of the exercises only need a floor you can lay on, a wall you can stand against, and maybe some bands.
"How cycling can wreak your body" or "how exercise can wreak your body" may not have the same catchiness to it but it is perfectly plausible headline.
Yoga needs to be done under expert supervision just like almost any activity that puts your body thru a range of motions not encountered in daily life.
Having personally experienced both Indian and American Yoga lessons - there is a fascinating aspect that comes up.
In the US almost always the discussions devolved into "I can master X pose for Y minutes without breaking a sweat" type ego stroking - exactly like "I can do 20 reps at 100 Pounds" boasting in a Gym. the whole mindset was Yoga was something that you had to master to beat in some sense.
In India (personal anecdote) the yoga teacher always emphasized "FLOW" - how smoothly can you transition between a set of fairly simple poses with maximum awareness. It almost felt like a totally different thing compared to the US style.
Most of the problems described have more to do with human nature then with yoga in particular. If you are 100 pounds overweight and live a sedentary lifestyle, then one day try to run a marathon just like that, there are high chances you will get injured. This is a bit of a hyperbole, but for many people going into sports is exactly this way, after years of inactivity there is some sudden abrupt strike of enthusiasm (e. g. a new years resolution), which leads people to apply too much intensity to a body that isn't prepared for it, ultimately ending with an injury. I have seen plenty of examples of this just among friends and relatives.
I haven't been in a yoga class and I am not a practitioner, but as far as I know from secondary sources the kind of instruction one will receive in yoga is in fact much wiser in this respect then in almost any other sport. Most of books written about yoga I have seen are full of precautions about not rushing things on yourself, starting with the simplest positions, going into the positions very slowly, getting out of the position as soon as you experience the slightest discomfort, warnings about not doing the inverted positions without consulting a doctor and so on. I don't think the article does justice to this. The example with the men kneeling each day for hours is especially absurd and I fail to see what it has to do with yoga.
Of course I don't doubt some of the more unnatural positions might really be doing more harm then good to the body even for experienced practicioners, the set of yoga positions as far I understand was invented very long ago and there is no reason it shouldn't be revised using modern knowledge of anatomy etc. I just don't believe most people would experience any of the problems described in the article if they actually followed the teachings, especially beginners just looking to improve their health, who are advised to use really simple positions and are in fact unable to perform the advanced ones according to the principles outlined above.
Yoga is for people in good physical condition. Or it can be used therapeutically. It’s controversial to say, but it really shouldn’t be used for a general class.
That's strange to me, because from what I know practicing yoga to a lot of people means following a specific mindset, diet, doing breathing exercises and holding various quite simple positions, I don't see how that can be dangerous and describing it as all headstands and neck twisting later in the article seems like a deformation of the original philosophy.
What is really deeply wrong with the article in the end is that it blames a specific kind of activity as the source of problems, so that people who read it maybe will think that yoga is dangerous and choose running instead, but will be left with no understanding of the fact that what really causes most of the injuries in most of the sports is ignorance of technique and basic safety restrictions, ignoring warnings signs from the body and most of all not learning enough about the given activity along with practicing it. Those people will end up having the same problems in any sport they choose. Yes, holding a headstand for five minutes can cause serious health damage if you have any problems related to your blood vessels, but the same thing can just as easily happen to a person doing a decline bench press in the gym or when training traditional gymnastics. Yes, pushing your body into unnatural positions when it's refusing to do it and signalizing pain will cause joint issues.
Guess what, education is as much needed for sports as it is for anything else.
Moreso, just because you know what you're doing or experienced doesn't mean you should do it. Knowledge of how to stand on your head, and the wisdom of if you should stand on your head are two different things.
Many instructors probably shouldn't do things that their students are doing. Why? Because they might be teaching 3 classes that day, and the student is in there three times a week.
I've been going to a yoga class once a week for the last nine months or so. I guess I'm lucky that I have a very gentle instructor who repeats something like this many times in each class: "let go of any preconceived notions and judgments of what you should be doing and pay attention to yourself". I've stopped looking around the room to see what others are doing and just try to push myself a bit more each week. Its been slow but I think its paying off.
Problem is, some limits are hard to detect until you've exceeded them; "listen to your body" really must be augmented by details and rigor around safe progressions through the practice (which, to complicate things, obviously vary by individual).
Also, there are some limits that should not be exceeded, period. Like the cases in the article where they exceeded the operating tolerances of the neck and gave themselves strokes.
Yoga certifications really ought to include a basic anatomy and physiology component.
Okay, so first off as a person who's had experience with an actual Himalayan Yogi, most of what Black says is true.
These Yoga classes are usually a contracted form of what the Yogic monks practice and therefore if carried on unchecked can be quite dangerous.
Yoga (for a first timer) starts of primarily with simple postures and more importantly breathing, and there are absolutely NO difficult postures for at least the first six months. Then he/she learns two new postures over a period of two months and adds that to their usual routine, and this iterates.
So, in about two years the person should be in good physical shape. That is how Yoga should be done.
I'd recommend an immensely useful book on Hatha Yoga, but I can't find the link. I shall add it as soon as I do.
Yoga is a quite like going to the gym, except you don't need a gym and it affects your whole body within the same time, not just whatever body parts you work out.
I spent about half of last year living at a Buddhist monastery and one of the other people staying for part of that time was a yoga instructor who talked about the same things. I've meditated for some years now and one of the main things he had me pay attention to were the smooth transitions between poses and quality of breath in particular. He seemed to agree with an observation I made about it being much like breath meditation with movement added in. Keeping a steady and concentrated mind with careful movements that flow together with the breath were important to maintain and he only gave me a handful of simple poses to work with, things like just raising and lowering legs and turning my legs to the side. No fancy poses or anything. He talked about the ignorance of many yoga instructors too and how dangerous it can be if not taken slowly and with great care.
I'm no yoga expert, but I've dabbled at two separate points in my life. While I've forgotten practically all of the postures, the breathing stays with me. I still consciously use different types of breathing depending on whether I need to increase/decrease alertness, relax the body, etc. IMO everybody should learn these important life skills even if they have no interest in anything else yoga-related.
He writes "my experience is that most yoga teachers encourage moderation". I've lived in an ashram in India and gone to a number of classes here and there and my experience is that the majority of yoga teachers are dangerously incompetent. Sure they talk about moderation, going slow, listening to the body etc but generally they still get people doing poses that are probably dangerous for a person in excellent shape and they almost universally fail to train people in the fundamentals. Partly its the fault of impatient students who don't want to spend a whole series of classes just learning to sit and stand properly (even if it's what they actually need). I still do a little bit of simple yoga now and then - it truly is excellent for fixing occasional back problems but I don't think I'll ever take another class, at least not without knowing the instructor very well.
The rebutting-author makes a valid point, but he seems to entirely miss the point. Yes, the yoga piece is no different than a "How Running Can Wreck Your Knees" piece, but yoga is especially treasured because it's seen as a spiritual, theres-no-way-something-this-inner-peaceful-could-be-bad activity.
The danger is not just in the physical exertion, but the mindset of the practitioners and teachers.
The danger of overexertion, which as you said is obvious, is not the only take-away I got from the article. Many of the worst injuries described came from poses that are not necessarily strenuous/difficult, but that rotate or bend the neck out of standard range.
Ok, firstly, I am Indian too. I have been doing yoga for the past two decades.
At one point I wanted to take my yoga "to the next level", whatever that meant. So I asked my teacher to teach me something more elaborate. She did (a variant of shoulder-stand), and I got a back pain that lasted for two weeks. From then on I have been sticking to my routine - two quick surya-namaskars, followed by 8 simple postures. This is all I have done for the past 2 decades. It makes me feel energetic during the day. I ask for no more.
If your job is sedentary/indoors, do a little yoga and see if it helps. Start small, and stick with what is comfortable. There is no need to compete for higher levels of achievement. If you feel good that's all that is important.
About Swami Vivekananda - I have read his complete works, it is an interesting read, very inspiring (helped me through a bout of depression in my late teens), and for history buffs, it offers some nice historical views of India, Europe and the US at the end of the 19th century. Vivekananda was a philosopher who explored the deep questions of life, and a social commentator with a keen eye for detail.
So read his works by all means, but you don't need that to benefit from some simple exercises.
This is a valid criticism of every exercise: done improperly, anyone can get hurt... done properly, there is still a small chance of injury.
Exercise is important for everyone's health, but the fact remains that the human body is poorly cobbled together and still not well-understood by science. Do what you can to help yourself stay healthy, but there is never a zero risk of critical failure.
The difference is that when I go to my regular trainer, he is very specific about not letting me exceed my physical limits. He's also very conscientious about making sure I know my physical limits so I don't hurt myself when he's not around.
In a yoga class, the instructor can regularly instruct people to do things that are inherently dangerous (even if they aren't painful.)
Pushing the risk onto the students is not particularly helpful. The student has placed (or misplaced, depending) their trust in the instructor not to hurt them. It's the instructors job to make sure they don't get hurt, including not having them do inherently dangerous things.
You'd be surprised how much science understands about how the body works.
When doing yoga, everyone needs to know and understand their limits. I know there is a lot of pressure, personally, to reach farther and twist more than you should whilst doing yoga. The straps are there for a reason and it shouldn't be viewed a weakness to have to use one.
When teaching yoga, the instructor needs to know and understand the limits of the human body. And then, at the very least, need to make sure their students know not to exceed those limits.
Yoga can be harmful, but not as harmful as sitting on your couch all day, but not as harmful as sitting on your couch all day and then thinking an hour of magic postures will fix it.
Well, exercise injury is an entire field of study, and hence the existence of the profession of physiotherapy. Yoga is just one more way you can hurt yourself and need a physiotherapist.
There was a great comment on the NYTimes article by someone called Stevi that I would like to quote here, "Yoga doesn't wreck the body. People wreck their bodies by practicing yoga with a lack of awareness and by taking classes from instructors who don't have enough experience. Yoga is an ancient discipline--a tool for self-realization. It's unfair to hold yoga responsible for our misuse of it. Yoga involves an eight-fold path of which asana is only one tenant. If you are practicing asana without without the other aspects of yoga such as ahimsa (non-harm), santosha (contentment), aparigraha (non-greed), etc., then you are destined for problems. Find a good teacher, and yoga is the greatest gift."
Yes, Yoga practiced incorrectly can screw your body. Even the breathing exercises if done incorrectly can screw your body. Tip: Do NOT practice Yoga from a book.
A close friend of mine started breathing exercises & yoga from a book. He's been doing some forms of these for many years, and this was the first time he was doing them from a book, and doing newer things.
He did or overdid something, and some balance in his body was disturbed. His weight dropped from 85kg to 54kg within a couple of months, becoming almost literally skin and bones.
He had to go for some intensive treatment to get his body back in line.
And this is a guy who I've known personally for 8 years now - not an anecdote I've heard.
So stick to the basic exercises, don't tie yourself up in knots, don't do any crazy breathing exercises, and certainly don't over do anything.
The reason Yoga was invented (if I'm not mistaken) was to allow Yogis to meditate for long periods of time - often hours or days. In essence, Yoga was used to ensure that your body could stay still for long periods of time.
It feels that people here in the West use Yoga as a "workout". Which is kind of crazy since, in my opinion, you're supposed to do Yoga to be in tune with yourself, bring awareness to your body and calm your mind (with the ultimate goal of being able to meditate).
Whenever I go to a Yoga class I personally prefer to stay in the back and do the poses at my own pace, and only focus on those where I feel comfortable - if a pose is stopping me from breathing properly I know that something is wrong.
I do contemporary US fitness oriented yoga quite often. It isn't my first choice for a sport, personally, but it works great as a compromise when I'm with my parents, their friends, or with girls. I'd rather do something other than my first choice if it can include more of the people I'm trying to socialize with at the time.
Anyway, for some reason, I look like I'm really struggling when I do it. My arms shake, etc.. This despite being able to run 14 miles throwing myself forward each step, do 30 pull-ups in a row, 100 sit-ups, etc.. Seeing me seemingly suffer, the yoga instructors are constantly telling me things: just do the poses that are within your practice, focus on your breathing and relaxing and not copying the poses, go into an easy child's pose or down dog pose whenever you feel things are too much, don't muscle yourself into a pose, do a few more sun salutations to warm and loosen your body before continuing, do you have any injuries I should be aware of, here is a modified pose that is easier, here is a pose to increase your upper body strength before doing inversions, etc..
Long story short, most people seem to try really hard to copy poses and force their body. That's apparently not the way to do it and teachers try hard to make that clear. I've never been injured, but I imagine it is much less likely doing it their way, which focuses on relaxation and breath.
The right question is, What is wrong with our understand of Yoga?
As per most people and if you ask them, they would reply Yoga means twisting, bending and turning your body in crazy ways to heal/medicinal use. Nothing would be further from the truth. Unfortunately things have come down to a level where people only give ritualistic definition of Yoga! Yoga also has many branches.
To understand Yoga in its essence I would advice you to read Swami Vivekananda's complete works.
I practice Yoga. Yoga is not a 2 hour exercise session. Yoga is a way of life. I practice Yoga, Its a branch of Yoga called Karma Yoga! So what does Karma Yoga mean? Its exemplified from a verse in Gita:
You have power to your actions only, not its outcome. Act therefore forth right without succumbing to inaction
This is to dedicate yourself towards a goal, consciously iterating and eliminating your faults in moments of self reflection improvising and not giving up until you reach your goal.
This is easier said than done! The key here is self reflection. I felt that David Allen's Getting things done took me to a better enabler to following Karma Yoga! I started following these techniques since last February.
I started taking one day a time, trying to most productive in a day. Eliminating distraction. And working towards a larger goal. The results have been astounding to me.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
---
There are also other forms of Yoga! My mother practices Pranayama. Which is basically meditation and breathing practices.
You also need a good teacher. Who knows Yoga! Else you will end up making mistakes which can be dangerous.
Yoga is a way of life. Stop thinking it in terms of gym sessions.
Ultimate aim of Yoga is to make you bring you to a state of self actualization. Like what Buddha was! And healthy body plays a important role in that. So Yoga helps you build that too. But people tend to understand Yoga only as some form of medical exercises.
It is quite unfortunate that OP is getting upvoted. He has hijacked the discussion by completely redefining yoga. Yoga might have meant all those spiritual aspects you've outlined, but as practised here in the USA and even in India, none of those aspects are even remotely brought to bear. I have been taught yoga formally in India both as a kid ( in most CBSE middle schools, you are auto-enrolled in 1 hour of yoga per week ) and as an adult. Swami Vivekananda was mentioned not even in passing.
> To understand Yoga in its essence I would advice you to read Swami Vivekananda's complete works.
Yeah and likewise to understand Computer Scienmce in its essence I would advice you to read D.E. Knuth's complete works and not profess to know any CS until you memorize each and every algorithm in TAOCP! You see how ridiculous that sounds ? That's the whole problem. Yoga a few centuries ago might have meant what you said, but as practised today, in the here and now, simply means acrobatic gym sessions with contortions paid for by your montly paycheck. Its unfortunate, but that's what it is.
Bringing in Kipling into this discussion is hugely ironic considering how much of a royal prick he was in his attitude towards Indians ( Kipling's transparently racist portrayals of Indian characters in Kim and Gunga Din, among others )
The Times article is about genuine medical risks posed by spinal twists and headstands, which are, unfortunately becoming more and more commonplace as sedentary officegoers frequent yoga studios to add some yoga to their fitness regimen. None of those people are remotely interested in karmayoga or nyanayoga - they just want to learn the asanas.
Asanas minus Yoga is not yoga.
But that's the reality of today. Learning shirasasana without learning its spiritual yogic root is akin to calling yourself a programmer and not knowing what a red-black tree is. But guess what, most programmers today don't know what a red-black tree is. That's sad, but its also a reality and we have to deal with reality as it exists, not based on Kipling's delusional rants. There are hundreds of actual people with actual broken ribs who desperately want to learn matsyasana and don't give a flying f--- who gautama buddha or ramakrishna paramahamsa or swami vivekananda was. That's just the way it is.
>Bringing in Kipling into this discussion is hugely ironic >considering how much of a royal prick he was in his attitude towards Indians ( Kipling's transparently racist portrayals of Indian characters in Kim and Gunga Din, among others )
If you consider Rudyard Kipling's characterization as racist then perhaps you are missing a few subtleties and humanizing nature of such character portrayals. I am from India and I do not consider Kipling's characterization as racist but rather a dig at the ills of society that existed during the British rule similar to Mark Twain's characterization of Native Americans and African Americans in the pre-civil war American south.
Well, he's clearing up a semantic point. As he said - Yoga has many branches - many different meanings. He's not taking the bullshit route of "Yoga is good, I practice Yoga, people who hurt themselves aren't really doing Yoga". He's said that there's different meanings, not one true Yoga, and admits what some people call Yoga may be a bad idea.
You are taking it to extreme. One cannot claim to be a computer engineer by learning to edit web page, same way doing few postures is not learning Yoga. Many people are following types of Yoga not associated with Asanas so you cannot put all in one category.
Here are two interesting statements from A Perfect Man, a biography of Eugen Sandow. Unfortunately, the author does not cite a source for these statements and doesn't appear to be familiar with yoga himself. (Also, the author strikes me as a little too eager to establish Sandow's influence on the modern world.) With those caveats in mind:
Sandow's ideas were taken up enthusiastically [in India after Sandow's visit there.] There were many who saw physical fitness as the first step on the road to independence and political power. These included Swami Vivekenanda, the Hindu nationalist leader (and exponent of the three Bs: beef, biceps, and the Bhagavad-Gita.)
Later, speaking about the physical practice of yoga that became popular in the west:
According to some historians, this modern posture-based yoga owes more to Western physical culture (including Sandow's) than it does to Indian tradition.
Sandow himself made many grandiose statements about the power of his physical exercise program to cure almost any bodily ailment. No one takes his claims seriously nowadays because he presented them as material facts, but if he had cloaked them in a bunch of mystical bullshit and attributed his ideas to an exotic ancient tradition, he might still have followers today instead of being a mostly forgotten Victorian curiosity.
As Pierre Bernard, one of the first of many indefatigable charlatans who popularized yoga, or at least its physical-training aspect, hatha yoga, in the United States, put it, “The purpose of yoga is to prepare us from getting cheated; to enable us to make better bargains, and to get what we go after!” Fabulous sex was high on Bernard’s menu even in the strait-laced 1910s. Robert Love’s entertaining biography, “The Great Oom,” depicts a bold and successful liar who could tell his gullible disciples with a straight face that oral sex, punishable in 1915 by up to 20 years in prison, was a sacred practice in India and produced orgasms 10 times longer than ordinary intercourse.
The more accurate statement is that Yoga can be a way of life if you choose to make it so. Just like a martial art can be a "way of life" (as in Karate-do - the way of Karate). But you can just practice your hour of Yoga a day, without any mumbo jumbo or assumptions about the ultimate aim of life and so on, just as you can practice Karate to get some exercise, or learning to fight, or to win a competition, or just have some fun. All are valid ways of approaching the "way".
And Vivekananda's works, while potentially interesting to someone who wants to understand Vivekananda's views, aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, the definitive books on what Yoga is and is not. Discussing what version of Yoga is the 'right' way and decrying other approaches is "inferior" or "just twisting" or whatever is reminiscent of the endless debates on the martial arts forums on what is the best style.
Or arguing about what "real" music is. with an implied 'those people over there aren't doing "proper" music' sneer.
fwiw I am Indian (not sure why that should be particularly relevant, but whatever) and a Yoga practitioner, of the "shut up and do the work and the ultimate aims will take care of themselves, meanwhile don't make pompous claims" school ;-)
Vivekananda was an extraordinary man. He came to the US in the 1890s not knowing a soul and ended by winning everyone over so completely that he became not just widely admired but loved. He had movie star looks and a brilliant mind and was the perfect figure to expound Hinduism to the West. His writings are marvelously alive and his English is first-rate. He deserves to be better remembered for the pivotal role he played.
As for explaining to yoga class attenders that they don't know what yoga is, forget it. Someone I met once brilliantly said: "The east never came west. What came west was a western version of the east." In particular, Western interest in Eastern religion (as well as in supposedly non-religious practices like yoga and meditation) has everything to do with Western societies' reaction against their own religions. It's self-referential.
We prefer to get our religion unconsciously these days.
"Western interest in Eastern religion (as well as supposedly non-religious practices like yoga and meditation) has everything to do with the reaction against Western religion"
I think this is only true among people who don't actually understand what religion is, which admittedly is probably the vast majority of Americans. There definitely are though a lot of people in the west who are interested in yoga, meditation, psychedelics, etc. specifically because of their religious nature. Even among most of these people there is a lot of orientalism, but this isn't the same as a reaction against religion per se. If you watch the documentary about Ram Dass or else that new movie Crazy Wisdom that just came out, you'll see though that these movements definitely did start because people were seeking primary religious experience rather than fleeing from it.
this isn't the same as a reaction against religion per se
I'm saying it's fundamentally a reaction against Christianity on the part of Christians and Judaism on the part of Jews.
But I see that my comment was ambiguous because I also said "we prefer to get our religion unconsciously". I suppose what I think is that some people who engage in these practices believe that they've transcended religion altogether while others believe they've found a better religion. In both cases, though, it's a reaction against the traditional (Christianity and Judaism) - it's our reaction against our traditions, so it's really about us and the contradictions in our own society.
Yeah, I understand that Yoga means something different to you, but what it means to you isn't at all what we're talking about.
It's kind of like the word "hacking", which to the mass market refers to the activity of taping two batteries together with an LED or making proper use of placebos.
Well frankly speaking if you remove the spirit of Yoga and restrict it to merely acrobatic and gym sessions kind of a regime. I would advice you better go with the actual gym and aerobic exercise.
You either need to adhere to things in their true spirit or just do some thing else.
Also the title in this article is highly misleading. Yoga won't wreck your body.
Rather it will take you a level higher. Like the Buddha! It will let you ponder on the deepest meaning of your existence.
Its very sad that its being marketed in America this way. Some time back I read somewhere that meditation is being marketed as 'hallucination'. That is by taking narcotics and dangerous intoxicants!
So those people whose bodies were wrecked doing yoga - and several specific examples were given in the article - I assume they weren't doing yoga? Sounds like the Fallacy of the True Scotsman to me.
Those Christians who steal, they aren't really Christians, right? Those Jews who let men and women mix in the synagogue, do they "adhere to things in their true spirit"?
And so on. Those who claim that there is a true way walk a dangerous path.
Exactly. As pointed out by the OC, Yoga is about ridding the ego and assuming awareness. "those people" were not practicing that at all, but rather the exact opposite. They were pushing themselves to do things they were not ready to do in the spirit of ego (or "I should be able to do this by now.").
>Those who claim that there is a true way walk a dangerous path.
This is true, however I believe it to be misapplied in this case. You could also say "That person eating an orange, how can you say he is not eating an apple? Is there not more than one way to eat an apple?"
Generally: words are defined by how people use them. They are not defined by history, or by experts, though experts may attempt to keep the meaning pure (often with limited success). Shared definitions are what enable communication; we don't have a choice in the matter if we want to communicate.
When you say "apple", virtually no one will think "citrus fruit, orange color" etc. We generally agree on what an apple and orange are.
If you say "yoga", however, and 80% of the people listening to you think of flexibility/twisting/poses/etc., you can't say "you're all wrong; I'm more expert than you".
It's frustrating when words and concepts are diminished and twisted in the process of greater adoption, but it's very common.
On top of that, the entire article is about how yoga (in the form it's most often done in the US) has the "potential to inflict blinding pain" and in teachers (in the US) the lack of "deeper training necessary to recognize when students are headed toward injury."
The reason people do yoga (as it's most often done in the US) is because it appears to: "lower your blood pressure, make chemicals that act as antidepressants, even improve your sex life."
Once you take out the "as most often practiced in the US" then the entire article is of course null and void. But since it's premised on differences between the US and India, like how Americans more often sit on chairs than on the floor, that's of course to be expected.
If you use another definition for "yoga", then you take away the bad parts, but then you also take away the attributed good parts. How do you know that the "pure" form of yoga is better at lowering blood pressure, etc. than the US form of the same? What's the cost benefit analysis?
As the essay rightly points out, yoga as it's taught in the US rarely includes the negatives. Apparently from various others in this thread, there are no negatives for yoga done right. Is this because every injury is attributed to not doing it right, or to the lack of good statistics on the matter? I presume both.
I've run into this position before on many things of unrelated matters and it never really agrees with me. I think mostly because redefining something does not inherently change what that thing is. 80% of the U.S. population may define Yoga as a bunch of twists and contortions, but people who know what yoga really is do not agree that those 80% are actually practicing Yoga. Likewise, if posting an unfortunate status update on someone's FB, that you found left in the logged in state at the library, suddenly became defined as "hacking" by 76% of the FB community, would you be inclined to agree with them?
Firstly, it's not a position; it's the fact of how communication works and how word usage evolves.
About liking it or not -- well, I don't like it, I care deeply about clarity of communication, and I despise how many debates on subjects like evolution, abortion, and all things political are derailed by (sometimes intentional) muddling of words' definitions.
So certainly, if you can convince everyone to re-adopt the original, more useful definition, then you have won and I salute you. Certainly you have the right to try -- sometimes it's very important to try and wrestle words back from the brink of uselessness.
But if you can't, then you are the odd one out. If everyone says "hacker" and means "someone who does stuff I don't like using computers", when you use the word with another meaning in mind, you are failing to communicate.
And the dictionaries will eventually start putting "archaic" after your definition.
If an article titled "How Hackers can use your credit card number" goes into details about what they mean by "hacker", examples of botnets and phishing, and mention that hacking in the criminal world can mean something different than what it means in the programming world, then I would have no problem with that.
This article was much more along those lines than the example you gave here. It often uses the term "yoga exercise" or "position", etc. and to state the specific action which caused an injury, or in the case of bikram yoga, to state a physical negative effect that it can have on the body.
In other words, it's what 80% of the population uses, and stated in such a way that the other 20% can tell exactly which of the many definitions of "yoga" the author means.
But then if real hackers came along and read that article, and then poised to point out that the "hackers" described in the article were not actually hacking but were rather engaging in an nonsensical tangent activity that could loosely be grouped within the technical field but not necessarily termed "hacking", we would then have to defend hacking by "redefining" it on the spot..
Not that I entirely disagree with you. I have no problem with observing a group performing such acts and pretending to define themselves within the collective for a group in which their activities really do not apply. I can certainly agree with saying "Fine, let them be." Until those activities begin to reflect badly upon the real collective, and then you must come out and explicitly distinguish between the real and the imaginative.
In your scenario (using someone's still-active account), I'll say it's ignorance from the author. But that's not the case here. My scenario (details about phishing attacks, mention that there are other uses for the word hacker) is much more comparable to the NYT article.
The author of the NYT article appears cognizant of the differences in different yoga forms, and of its history in the US and in India. This article uses proper usage of one of the many accepted meanings for "yoga", in a way that's understood by the readers and by domain experts.
Were real hackers to complain in my scenario, then to them I say "you've lost." They don't get to decide language, and real black-hat hackers embrace the term for themselves while many proficient white-hack hackers do not. People in the 1990s tried to introduce the term "cracker" as a substitute but that didn't take. The war is lost. Embrace (or accept) the white hat/black hat spectrum and get over it.
To yoga people who care about the precise term, just start saying the specific kind of yoga you mean. And don't call it "true" or "real" yoga.
I'm an Indian too and have attended classes under atleast 3 different schools of Yoga. Let's not beat down the schools which focus on asanas. If you do an intense study of Iyengar Yoga, you would understand that it is a fantastic system with the attention to details that is hard to find elsewhere.
Yoga means to unite/connect. There are many branches of Yoga - Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Hatha Yoga, etc. They all differ in their philosophy.
In west Yoga means Yogasana (Yoga + Asana) - postures used in Yoga.
Thank you for this thoughtful explanation, which I have never encountered before. Off topic, but because you have a unique perspective, I would like to ask you a question I have been polling interesting people I meet: determinism or free will?
I think this is mainly a USA thing. I've practiced Yoga for years in the Netherlands, and if anything, it is about not straining yourself, or if you do stretch something, to only stretch it when you can be completely feeling and aware of the thing you're stretching. You need that awareness first and foremost, and then the posture.
It's incredibly hard, nearly impossible, to feel and be aware in a body part when it's in pain from overstretching or tension. Consciousness doesn't like to go there, as long as the nerves are occupied with sending pain signals, they're not doing much feeling. If you ignore or block the pain you're not being aware, but if you do, the pain is "louder" than anything else, so you're still not getting much.
It's stupid and useless. The goal should be the awareness, so you're much better off doing simple postures, or simplified versions of complex postures, or just see how far you can go while still being comfortable and aware.
If you practice it this way, you'll know when you're going too far, because your awareness will fade (you'll often just realize it in hindsight, though, in the moment, you're not aware that you're not aware, just like Dunning-Kruger) and if you don't, that's what the teacher is for. S/he will pay attention to the students and notice when they're more involved with doing a posture than with paying attention to what all there is to feel inside their bodies.
I just can't get my head around this, to get all the benefits of Yoga, you can just stick to the simplest postures and do them a lot (unless you're injured in which case you do them even simpler, the Sawasana is just lying down flat on your back, so there's always that one). If you try postures that are too complicated or straining for your body-flexibility, you'll get nothing! Except injury! It's just stupid, these supposed "experienced" Yoga practitioners, "advancing" to more and more complicated postures, I suppose every time they feel "comfortable" in some posture they move on to something new! They're missing the whole point! Feeling comfortable? Good. Everything you did before was not Yoga, but warming-up and stretch exercises. It's Yoga when you can relax in a posture, without strain, without pain. And if there's some posture for which that seems impossible to you, do a different one. It's okay, they're not "better" than the ones you're comfortable in.
I practiced yoga for several years on a very regular basis. Although I personally did not experience any significant injury, I can really understand how people can get caught up in pushing their body beyond its means, even through pain. Despite the fact that teachers often emphasize staying within your ability and focusing on your own practice, the ego often creeps in. Either between students or even w/i yourself, struggling to further 'perfect' a pose or match what you did last week, is too easy to fall into.
I think it is probably similar to other pursuits, whether it be running, weight lifting, or swimming. It's easy to over do it, and you have to keep your ego in check.
Yoga is an amazing practice with a lot of benefits. The take away that I get from this is to not assume that yoga is always harmless, and to check your ego at the door and really pay attention to your body. Sometimes easier said than done (especially as I currently nurse a knee injury from a long run last week, which I really knew I shouldn't have done, but badly wanted).
I've done yoga with an excellent teacher for years and never had a problem. One day with a substitute was all it took to put my upper vertebrae in a bad state for two years.
There is wide variation in teacher knowledge and experience. Maybe they should be licensed, or, if you prefer the libertarian approach, caveat emptor.
BTW I am in my 50's, most of the class was 40+ yrs old
On further consideration, I think yoga is best thought of as a sport, rather than a therapy. You risk injury in all sport activities, but you decide it's worth it, not just for the physical benefits but because you enjoy the challenge, it makes you feel good about yourself. Yoga definitely gives benefits that are more than physical, and like almost any physical activity, you have to understand the risks, and especially be very aware of your level of competence to avoid pushing your risk profile dangerously high. The teacher is really a trainer, and should be competent enough not to have you do something that will hurt you. This is hard in a big class; the best teachers constantly remind you to listen to your body, and be aware of your limits.
It should definitely not be used as a replacement for physical therapy, though it can help with general problems such as joint and back stiffness and mild pain.
My takeaway from the article is that yoga, like any other physical activity, can be dangerous when one does not know how to do it properly, but more importantly, has too large an ego to know when to quit/pause.
I've been doing yoga for only a little over a month, but I go at my own pace at home. I'm not in a class where I force myself to "keep up" or whatnot.
Trust yourself. In most forms of physical activity, if you are uncomfortable doing it, there is probably damage being done. But that doesn't mean damage isn't a good thing. In weight training, you purposely push yourself to the edge to break down your muscles and build them back stronger. The edge is an undecipherable gray for most novices so don't travel anywhere close without the advice of a trusted advisor. I learned that lesson the hard way when I first started lifting, "push as hard as I can to see the best results."
An experienced advisor makes all the difference in the world. Some things in life just never change: from startups to fitness, seek wisdom for great justice.
It's just like any other form of exercise: do what you can do, and be careful. Some types of Yoga can be quite heavy, almost like heavy weight lifting, and similar caveats apply.
I don't doubt you can get hurt badly in a Yoga class and I never have.
That's why I only generally attend the less intense classes. I know I'm not lance armstrong.
My girlfriend manages a studio and has seen her share of nasty injuries from exactly what this article warns about: "Now urbanites who sit in chairs all day walk into a studio a couple of times a week and strain to twist themselves into ever-more-difficult postures despite their lack of flexibility and other physical problems..."
Interesting that Yoga is marketed heavily for people who sit in front of a computer for hours a day, even though the article points out that it's more dangerous for them because they're not already exercising the way that the people for whom yoga was invented for did.
I think it's worth pointing out that physical yoga, much like any sort of physical exercise, can damage the body. Yet, if you're young and in good physical condition, it can strengthen your body a lot. The article has a strong point: lots of people shouldn't be doing these intense exercises.
I took three months to train in Shaolin Kung Fu, near the Shaolin Temple in China about two years back. I trained for 7-9 hours a day, 6 days a week. I ate over 5,000 calories a day, and ended up losing 16 pounds by the end (and I was decently fit to begin with).
The stretching was intense and almost made me cry, I cut myself with swords, bruised myself with meteor hammers, and even lashed my own flesh with whips (by mistake, of course). Yet, I easily doubled my explosive strength, multiplied my endurance by fifteen times, and even managed to learn to throw a sewing needle through glass.
Everything has a downside if you do it wrong, but you're not supposed to do it wrong.
It's sensationalized headlines like this that ruin something that is inherently good but has been bastardized by peoples needs to be super good at everything they do!
Yoga will not wreck your body - doing it wrongly will. Just like driving drunk can get you killed - doing yoga without understanding it - and knowing what your bodys own limits are will get you killed too.
Anything powerful is always double edged. The author in fact highlights example that prove just that - people who overdo their yoga (the kid who sat in a pose praying for world peace for days) - or jump into it to quickly without any checks or training (the guy who popped his ribs) will definitely wreck themselves.
BUT - so will first time swimmers who decide to try swim across the english channel. Or amateur weightlifters who decide to benchpress twice their bodyweight on the first go. Putting out an article like this just scares people off from something that is inherently good - rather than making them more aware of the fact that its good - but ONLY if used correctly.
I started yoga in India as a kid. The ashram I went to is in Bombay and I was not allowed to start anything without a certificate from a doctor saying I was physically sound - the ashram itself also had a doctor at hand who did yet another check - specific to yoga and had me fill out a full medical history. Based on this history the doctor selected very basic exercises and marked them out in a little book that I was provided. The trainer had me do just those exercises (relaxation exercises, simple leg raises and basic stretches) for almost a month - before I could do them without any trouble - before he moved on to slightly more challenging positions, also again with the approval of the inhouse doctor. Those years of yoga helped me tremendously to overcome some health issues I had - and I am sure there are plenty more out there who's lives have been enriched by yoga.
This is how yoga should be done - and was done through the years - there were people who knew what it was about and had practiced for decades before they started teaching others.
However, as is typical to the consumerization of anything in this world - people try to industrialize things and take short cuts to make a quick buck. We have fancy sounding forms of yoga like hot yoga or power yoga that try to create the fad of the season. Folks do a few months of training in yoga and become "instructors" and charge money to train people in exercises that they really should not be training.
I'd rephrase that article - and say that yoga is great and if done correctly can actually save lives (especially in the overstressed obese and sedentary societies we live in these days). However being the powerful skill that it is - it must be handled with care by people trained and experienced.
TL;DR - Yoga is not bad, people who are doing too much too fast or "teaching" new fancy forms of yoga with no real sound backing are ruining the experience for over enthusiastic beginners who dont get that it has to be taken slow. Do yoga its good for you - but make sure someone who knows what your conditions are and what yoga is all about is teaching you!
I'm now eagerly awaiting NY Times' revelational "why jogging or any other physical activity can hurt you if you are not in adequate physical condition for it" article.
I've attended quite a lot of yoga classes in different parts of the country, and none of them have included any kind of inversion -- no head stands, shoulder stands, or "bridge" (aka wheel). For that matter, none have included the leg extension done by the guy in the green shirt, either.
This article is both factual and sensationalist at the same time.
This article is inflammatory and poorly written. 20 million practice in the US but a handful of anecdotes and second-hand claims of injury are mentioned? Sounds like good odd to me.
How many are injured by ego, ignorance, or bad advice in gyms, on tracks and fields, or in pools every day? Lose the ego and be selective about your coach.
Compare it to swimming, which is also seen as a recuperative exercise. But in swimming, it is very difficult to accidentally over-exert yourself...you'll get too tired. So the danger of someone who is completely out of shape going too far is minimal. However, in yoga, it is very easy to go too far because just entering or holding (what seemed easy to get into) the poses may overstrain a muscle or joint.
And let's not discount the mindset of many yoga practitioners, novice and expert. Swimming may be a healing sport, but it has the connotation of being a sport. Yoga is seen as not just a physical activity, but as a way to connect spiritually, be at inner peace, and not worry about competition (even if it implicitly happens, as demonstrated in the article). So there is additional danger is in the naive mindset of yoga practitioners...comparatively few people go into long-distance running with the belief that it won't have impact on their knees or back.
* Another way to look at it...speaking from personal experience...there is a high correlation between people who are really into yoga and people who are really into doing periodical "cleanses"...that is, diets in which they spend $200 (no exaggeration) for three days of juice-only servings. This may also be a peculiarity of living in Manhattan...yet I know of other athletes in the city who would never consider doing a juice-diet, or who believe in the "science" of cleanses.
The point is is that yoga attracts people who want a less rigorous way of being healthy, and these people may not realize that yoga can be as damaging as standard weightlifting.