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.
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.