Warrior 1 (Virabhadrasana I) - Issues and solutions

Some General Comments :- Warrior 1 pose can be practised with feet parallel or with the back foot turned outward. In terms of external appearance of the pose, this may not seem to make a great difference, but, in terms of how the pose feels to the practitioner and the effect of the pose on the body, the feet position makes a big difference. Personally, I much prefer to practise the pose with feet parallel because that is what feels healthiest for my body - unless it is part of a sequence that makes this difficult. These notes, however, cover issues for both feet positions.

List of some of the issues that can be relevant for practising this pose:

            Pregnancy




It is not immediately obvious to those with good balance that Warrior 1 has a significant balance component, but this can be easily be revealed by practising with one’s eyes closed. Those with poorer balance may well find that they tend to wobble from side to side. Having one’s feet wider apart (that is in the sideways direction rather a longer stance in the forwards / backwards directions) usually is very helpful. Having a shorter stance (less distance in the forwards / backwards direction) can help and many find that having the back foot turned out a little also helps. Practising beside a wall can help, as can resting a hand on a wall or chair. As always, with balance, having a focus (such as a mark on the floor) to let one’s gaze rest upon can be a great aid. Lifting one’s gaze to look up at one’s hands is thus only for those who feel very stable in the pose before they do this.



Traditionally in the full version of the pose one holds the arms lifted overhead (or further backwards from this) and looks up at one’s hands. This can present problems for both the neck and shoulders.

With regard to the neck, the tilted-up position of the head is fine if it results from the back bending in the thoracic spine continuing in a smooth curve into the cervical spine. Even so, it best to aim to keep the chin at least somewhat drawn into the neck so that the back of the neck stays long to avoid putting the cervical spine into a compressive backbend. Those who are restricted in the thoracic spine with regard to extension (backwards bending) will find it difficult or impossible to lift the head without scrunching up the back of the neck. Thinking in terms of moving the back of the neck backwards (instead of the back of the head) helps, but, without the thoracic spine moving into extension, the amount the head ends up tilted backwards will be slight. Those who already have neck problems or poor balance do best to omit attempting to position the head so that they can look up at the hands.

With regard to shoulders, not everyone is able or comfortable lifting the arms to an overhead position. You can, instead, lift arms to as close to overhead as feels comfortable - or try an alternative arm position. For example, pressing the arms and shoulders backwards can give a similar feeling of openness in the chest as one gets from having arms lifted overhead. Other good positions to try include:- arms by side, hands in prayer position, arms lifted sideways to shoulder level and hands resting on abdomen. There is also a range of useful arm movements with the breath that can be usefully explored.



The effect of this pose on the chest is highly influenced by the arm position. In the full pose, with the arms overhead and head looking up at the arms, the thoracic spine is in a strong backbend and the chest held in an open expanded position. This makes breathing via chest movements almost impossible. This is not normally a problem, but those who are used to primarily breathing via the expansion and contraction of the rib-cage (rather than “abdominally”) may well find the experience uncomfortable or even distressing - although it is very unlikely to do any physical harm. If one does experience some discomfort with regard to breathing, then one should simply go a little less far into the spinal back-bending aspect of the pose or use arm movement to aid the feeling of breathing freely. The degree of back bend with which one feels comfortable will increase with practice.

Even with the arms lowered the pose will tend to feel strenuous. The legs are (ideally) active with lots of muscles held contracted and the more “effortful” breathing encourages the heart to beat more strongly – so holding the pose will tend to increase blood pressure whilst in the pose. For most people, this gives the heart and circulatory system (in general) a good work out – but where the heart or other aspects of the circulatory system have already been badly compromised, then it may well be better to explore entering and leaving the pose instead of holding the pose. Even in a non-strenuous position, holding the arms lifted overhead will raise blood pressure and make the heart work harder. Holding the arms lifted overhead when in a pose that is already, in other regards, strenuous causes a lot of extra work for the heart and increase in blood pressure. Thus those who know they have an aspect of their circulatory system that has been weakened (e.g. heart problems, various vein issues, high blood pressure, strokes …) should omit practising the pose with the arms held lifted overhead (moving arms between lifted and not lifted is not nearly so strenuous for the heart).



If this pose is practised with the feet parallel (and the pelvic girdle facing forwards) then the lumbar spine is moved into a back-bend. The degree of this back bend is dependent on many factors. The length of the stance of the legs (how far apart the feet are in the forwards / backwards direction) will have a big impact if one has any tightness in the ilio-psoas muscles. The psoas muscles attach to the front of the lumbar spine, and the iliacus muscles of the top front of the pelvic girdle and both attach to the top of the femur. Thus the further backwards (or the longer the stance of the legs) the backward leg is, the more these muscles will tend to pull the lumbar spine into a potentially compressive backbend. When the pose is practised well, this potentially compressive backbend is turned into a long open backbend by engaging other muscles. Consciously imagining the tailbone moving downwards will help to lengthen the lumbar spine downwards. A similar effect can be obtained by consciously engaging muscles of the back of the backwards leg – sinking the heel of the backwards leg usually helps. I find it particularly helpful to engage my leg muscles as though trying to pull the feet towards each other against the resistance of the floor. Engaging and maintaining good tone in the abdominal muscles (e.g. by squeezing the abdomen in towards the spine) gives the lumbar spine a slightly upwards lengthening support – helping to make the whole of the lumbar area more stable, as well as “lengthening” the backbend. There is a difficulty in using abdominal tone to support the lumbar spine in this pose in that if the thoracic spine is moved into a back bend then it is necessary for the abdominal muscles to relax enough to allow abdominal breathing to occur. In other words, there needs to be good tone in the abdomen but not rigid contraction of the abdominal muscles. Since lifting the arms and / or taking the thoracic spine into a back bend almost always increases the backbending tendency in the lumbar spine, one should not attempt to incorporate such things until one can practise the pose while keeping the lumbar spine “long”. If one does experience discomfort (or feelings that discomfort will occur if the pose is held for long), then this can usually be reduced by leaning the trunk forwards (as this reduces the stretch in the ilio-psoas muscles). However, I think it is more helpful to shorten one’s stance (have the feet closer together in the forward / backwards direction) until one is able to work with keeping the tail bone drawn downwards enough that the lumbar spine feels long and comfortable.

With the back foot turned outwards, things are a little more complicated. Other things being equal, turning the back foot out reduces the stretch in the ilio-psoas muscles and so reduces the degree the lumbar spine is pulled forwards into a back-bend by these muscles. However, because of the reduced stretch of the ilio-psoas muscles most people can (and thus do) adopt a longer stance (distance between feet in forwards / backwards direction) than is possible for feet parallel and this increases the backbend for the lumbar spine. What is really different for the lumbar spine is the position of the pelvic girdle. Unless one is very flexible with regard to hip rotation, the pelvic girdle ends rotated towards the side of the back leg. Since one wants to look forwards this means there has to be a rotation in the spine. There is only a very small amount of rotation possible in the lumbar spine. But if one is determined to keep the chest facing forwards (and this is what most of us try to do) then this where much of the spinal rotation will occur – there and at the joint between the bottom thoracic vertebra and the top lumbar vertebra. In addition many also tilt the pelvic girdle a little sideways. This means that, if the head stays level, the spine has to bend sideways so there is a sideways S shape to the spine. Usually most of this side bending will tend to occur in the lumbar spine and then also in the other direction in the cervical spine. So the lower back has to cope with a combination of a backbend, twist and possibly a side bending. Not a problem if the lower back is healthy – but potentially a problem for those who already have lower back problems (especially where this is from a tendency to excessive lumbar lordosis - concave lower back). Although this approach to the pose is much more complicated for the lumbar spine than with feet parallel, the advice is much the same. That is: - aim to keep the lower back long via activating the legs and good use of abdominal tone; omit adding in lifting the arms or taking thoracic spine into a backbend until one can keep the lower back long; and, if discomfort is felt in the lower back, leaning the trunk forwards a little or reducing length of stance may help.

Using “base support” ideas and mula bandha are also protective of the lumbar spine.



With feet parallel the hips are either in a simple flexion (front leg) or extension (back leg). The degree of flexion for the hip of the front leg is well within range of normal movement. But the degree of extension at the hip of the back leg is normally at or close to the limit of the hip’s range of movement for extension, with the ilio-psoas muscles stretched to their fullest extent. This does not so much present a problem, but means that this normally limits how long a stance (distance between feet in forwards / backwards direction) one can adopt for the pose. If the pull in the groin of the back leg feels too strong, one should simply shorten one’s stance.

With the back foot turned outwards there is outward (lateral) rotation at that hip as well as extension. If the pelvic girdle is rotated to the side, there is also outward rotation at the hip of the front leg. To draw the pelvic girdle back towards facing forwards requires a mixture of contraction and relaxation in the hip rotators. Most people lack the required hip flexibility to fully bring the pelvic girdle back to facing forwards. But the good news is the attempt tends to put the sacro-iliac joint into “traction” (as opposed to warrior 2 and extended triangle which tends to compress these joints) and so can help free them up a little. Also, engaging the hip rotators in this way helps to develop both strength and flexibility in the muscles around the hip joints.

With both foot positions, there is a tendency for awareness, and therefore weight, to be more in the front leg than the back leg. Partly this is because it feels natural to have one’s awareness in front rather than behind. Taking one’s weight forwards also tends to make the pose feel a little less effortful and may be due to leaning the trunk forwards a bit (which releases tension in the ilio-psoas muscles). However, having the awareness and weight more in the front leg encourages the back leg to be less active and leads to less stability in the position of the pelvic girdle and less drawing downwards of the base of the lower back (see previous section on lumbar spine issues). In particular, it is important to keep hamstrings of the back leg active and contracted – this is aided by imagining an elongation from the back hip down the back of the leg through the heel and beyond. If the back foot is turned out, then keeping the hip muscles appropriately engaged requires one to keep the outside edge of the back foot actively pressing downwards.



With feet parallel, the forces across the knee joints treat the knee joints as simple hinge joints and so are unlikely to cause problems – that is, assuming the knees are pointing (as they should be) in the same direction as the feet. The front knee should not be further forwards than the ankle but, in practice, the ilio-psoas normally prevents the hips (and therefore the front knee) moving too far forwards. If the front knee is too far forwards it simply means that one can practise with a longer stance or one needs to draw one’s weight more into the back leg. One may find it helpful to consciously contract front thigh muscles of the back leg and draw on the knee-cap – but, unless one has a tendency to hyper-extend the knee joint, then one is unlikely to need to do so to ensure the knee joint stays appropriately aligned in the pose.

With the back foot turned out, the back knee is much more vulnerable to knee problems occurring, such as rotation of the knee joint, sideways bending at knee joint or, for some, hyperextension of the knee joint. Mr. Iyengar gives excellence advice of drawing up the knee-cap and toning the thigh muscles generally. If one follows this advice, one turns the leg from something that can bend at the middle into a rigid rod – and this protects the knee joint by preventing any unhealthy knee joint movements.



With feet parallel one can find that it is difficult to keep the back heel on the floor. This may be because the calf muscles are tight or because one’s stance is long. This need not be a problem – although the feel of the pose is changed slightly, the benefits remain the same provided one retains the sense of the heel sinking or pushing down into the floor. Balance is harder with the back heel off the floor so putting a small rolled up towel under the back heel can help with balance and retaining the feeling of pushing the back heel downwards. The calf muscles are stretched in this pose, so with practice one does find it easier to keep the back heel down. If you want an exercise that more specifically stretches the calf muscles, practice warrior 1 with hands resting on a wall (in front) at shoulder level – then push (or lean) into the wall to help you push the back heel downwards.

With the back foot turned outwards, it is easier to keep the back heel on the floor – because the stretch in the calf muscles is reduced. If one practises with poor attention to the back foot, there is a strong tendency to allow the weight of the foot to be mostly on the inside edge of the foot (i.e. foot rolled inwards). This is bad news for the feet as it tends to crush the inner arches and exacerbate and encourage problems such as achy feet and plantar fasciitis. Such poor feet care also has implication higher up at the hips, pelvic girdle and spine within the pose.

If one practises with appropriate attention to the feet, then one has most of the weight moved to the outside edge of the feet whilst keeping the pads of the big toe joints pressing downwards into the floor. This activates and lifts the arches of the feet – which is generally good news, but if one is not used to having one’s feet active in this way (or already has feet problems) then this can feel a little too strong. In which case try practising with the back foot turned out a little less and a shorter stance.


Pregnancy

Practising yoga in the first trimester is considered by most yoga teachers to be contra-indicated. The only explanation I have heard for this is that in the first trimester there is a fairly high tendency for spontaneous miscarriage and this could in principle be exacerbated by yoga (although, as far as I know, there is no evidence for this). Possibly a mid-wife or an expert pregnancy yoga teacher might be able to give a better explanation.

In the later stages of pregnancy, one of the issues that needs to be borne in mind is that the womb starts to press against the inferior vena cava (main vein in the trunk) and the aorta (main artery). This has implications for blood circulation to and from the legs. It is thus unwise to hold the leg part of standing postures - with risks of discomfort, tiredness (in legs) and an increased likelihood, over the long term, of getting varicose veins or tissue fluid issues (oedema) in the legs. With regard to warrior poses one should only really go in and out of the leg part of the pose (i.e. omit any static holding of the leg part of the pose for more than a couple of breaths). Since one is not holding the leg part of the pose, it is not so relevant to mention that holding the arms lifted or the thoracic spine in a backbend is unhelpful from a breathing point of view. With abdominal breathing restricted by the growing womb, one wants to avoid holding the upper trunk in a position that will be too restrictive of chest breathing. Both these issues suggest that warrior 1 may not be the most helpful of poses to try to explore during pregnancy. Some alternatives to consider are sitting fish pose (from sitting, lean backwards and place hands on floor and then lift chest) or standing cobra (from standing, clasp hands behind back, draw hands downwards while rolling shoulders backwards and then lifting arms away from back, encouraging chest to expand forwards). Other options to consider would be things like cat breathing (from all fours or standing cat) and sitting with a chair in front and resting hands and head on a chair in such a way that encourages back bending of the upper back.

Top