A vast majority of you have probably been told this.
Or, you know someone who has.
Variations of this statement include:
But how much sense do these claims actually make?
All of these statements use relative terminology.
If someone says that you have "poor mobility", it must be in reference to another thing.
If someone says that you have "tight" or "limited" muscles/joints, it must be in reference to something that is less tight, or less limited.
In other words...
These statements are complete nonsense.
Much of the time, people unknowingly refer to standards of range of motion.
But standards of range of motion are averages.
And people aren't average.
People are people.
Let me give a parallel.
The average height of an adult American male is 5 feet, 9 inches.
The average height of an adult Japanese male is 5 feet, 7 inches.
In this context, would it make sense to say that American men have "better" height than Japanese men?
Of course not.
If you blindly subscribe to the language around mobility, in essence, this is what you're saying.
One more example:
The average height of an adult Dutch male is 6 feet.
In this context, would it now make sense to say that American men have "worse" height than Dutch men?
In the former context, the average height of an American man was "better".
But, relative to Dutch men, the average height is "worse".
Change the comparison, and all of a sudden you've changed the description.
This is the antithesis of scientific thinking.
Some of you may be thinking...
"But Ben! Height and mobility are totally different! We can't change our height, but we can change our mobility!"
Only partially true.
You can alter your mobility to some extent.
You can adapt your muscles to tolerate longer and shorter lengths.
You can adapt your connective tissues to be able to stretch more.
But you can't work around bony constraints.
Bony constraints are the guardrails.
Bones determine the ultimate adaptability of muscles and connective tissues.
They're the foundation.
And even if you did improve your mobility - whatever that means - is that good? Why do you think it's good?
Here's the point: we shouldn't take the average of a physical characteristic and make it a rule to compare ourselves to.
That makes no sense.
You're right, you're right.
None of this is relevant unless it relates to practical application.
Here's why it matters...
If you think something is "wrong" with you, because you have "poor mobility" relative to a standard that you've arbitrarily self-imposed, you're going to alter your decision-making with that as your guiding light.
I see this all the time. Picture this...
Joe goes to a doctor.
Joe gets told by their doctor or physical therapist that they have poor mobility.
Joe diligently spends 20 minutes every single day (prior to lifting, let's say) stretching, foam rolling, and flopping about like a fish.
After a year, Joe eventually recognizes that nothing has changed, only to realize he's wasted 2+ hours every week (over 100 hours of wasted time).
That's over 100 hours that Joe could've spent doing something else.
Cardio.
Lifting more.
Spending an extra 20 minutes with loved ones every day.
The list goes on.
This might sound counter-intuitive to you at this point, but I'm actually not against mobility training or stretching.
If you enjoy doing it, that's no different to me than reading a good book. You like something, so you take the time to do it.
What I am against is people believing that they have limited x, tight y, or restricted z.
These are nonsense terms.
And they make people feel like they're broken.
And they force people to waste their time rolling around when they could be training (or doing anything more productive).
So...
The next time someone tells you that you have "poor mobility"...
Send them a link to this article. :)
P.S - if you're a coach, check this out.
P.P.S - if you want to immediately know how to target any muscle in your body, check this out.
Providing free education every week to the lifelong lifter.