The “horizontal pelvis” is a keystone of Ida Rolf?s concept of normal structure. In order to discuss the pelvis and its horizontality sensibly, definitions need to be given so the many overlapping meanings of terms can be kept clearly apart. The block model expresses Ida Rolf?s basic tenet that in an integrated structure the segments of the body are arranged exactly on top of each other. This condition is met in its most relevant part when the gravity centers of the individual segments are aligned on the same vertical line. This line then coincides with the Line which is the vertical through the gravity center of the whole body.

In this very general context “pelvis” means “pelvic segment”. The term is more abstract than the pelvis in the flesh. The notion permits to locate the pelvic segment with respect to the Line. Three coordinates are needed to determine whether the pelvic segment is shifted anterior or posterior, left or right, and up or down. The last, which is in the vertical dimension, cannot be determined by the Line and the gravity center of the pelvic segment alone but actually needs additional information: a scale on the Line or a comparison with neighbouring segments e.g. It is of little importance in practice, however, and can usually be disregarded. Obviously, horizontality is not directly related to such shifts: the pelvic segment can be horizontal or not regardless of transverse or sagittal shifts, at least in principle. An additional condition for normal structure stipulates that no rotations must be present. Again it is evident that rotation around the vertical axis – rotation proper – does not impinge on the horizontality of the pelvic segment. Rotation around the sagittal axis does, it produces side-tilt, and rotation around the transverse axis results in anterior or posterior tilt. The latter is the theme of this paper. A first and negatively formulated definition can be given: the pelvis is horizontal when no anterior or posterior tilt is present. The positive formulation reads that the horizontal pelvis is at the neutral point with regard to tilt.

The concept of the pelvic segment implies specifically that the axes used for describing rotation go through the gravity center of the segment. When proceeding to the more concrete concept of the “pelvis in the flesh” – defined as the total of all the tissue usually assigned to the “pelvis” and not only its constituent bones – an important peculiarity turns up. The anatomical axis around which the pelvis tilts goes through the centers of the two hip joints. This axis lies lower than the gravity center of the pelvic segment and the “pelvis in the flesh”. The “anatomical tilt” is around this axis and differs therefore from the “segmental tilt” which is around a transverse axis through the gravity center. “Tilt” is from now on used to denote the “anatomical tilt”. The situation is shown in Ill. 1. In this simple model the legs are vertical and assumed to remain so. The pelvis is represented as a bowl or a hemisphere fixed to the legs at the hip joints like the wheel of a cart to its axle. The only movement possible in this model is tilting. It is described simply by saying that the gravity center of the pelvis moves on a circle around the hip joints. The radius is constant. Description of the same movement in “segmental language” is much more complicated: the gravity center of the pelvis shifts anterior or posterior depending on the direction of the tilt, and in both cases it shifts down (when coming from neutral). In addition, the pelvis tilts “segmentally” – rotates around the transverse axis through the gravity center – in the same direction as the sagittal shift.

The contention of the gravity center of the pelvis being higher than the anatomical axis of tilt needs explanation. The notion of the gravity center suffers from two inadequacies. First, it is impossible and actually meaningless to try to determine exactly what “is pelvis” and what not – be it the pelvic segment or the “pelvis in the flesh”. Secondly, even if it could be done, the irregular distribution of the tissues with their different specific weight would frustrate any attempt to determine the gravity center exactly. Still, that the contention is true is supported easily experientially. With the client’s or one’s own body standing still, the pelvis is tilted in both directions trying to keep the legs in place and the upper body lightly balanced. One will notice two things. If the pelvis is tilted anteriorly, an anterior shifting of the pelvis becomes obvious. At some point the legs will want to shift back to compensate for the anterior pelvic shift. If they are held in place, the upper body will go back for balance or the whole body will shift forward on the feet. Secondly, the pelvis sinks. This happens passively, at least if the tilting is in the direction of the structural tilt. Reversing the tilting will always take muscular force to bring the pelvis over the top at neutral against gravity.

When tilting the pelvis forward and back a further observation can be made. In a perfectly integrated body the gravity center of the pelvis would describe a segment of a perfect circle, the highest point being neutral and corresponding to the “horizontal pelvis”. In real bodies, which are never perfect, the connective tissue does not provide the absolutely ideal resilience necessary for tilting along a perfect circle. Around the neutral point there will be a little strain which pulls the pelvis down on the femora some. This manifests in a blurred sensation of the circle. Geometrically speaking, the circle is flattened a little on top.

With little integrated bodies there will be noticeable contortions and effort in the upper body and the legs. If they are kept to a minimum, the impression is that of the pelvis diving under the neutral point to the other side where it continues on some kind of circle (Ill. 2). The observation can almost be used as a measure for the structural integrity of a body. Structures could be divided into those which show a continuous and fluid movement although marred a little when going “over the hill”. Others would show a discontinuity there, a “noman’s-land” between anteriorly and posteriorly tilted postures.

Perhaps it should be added that the design of the body calls for the gravity center of the pelvis to be maximally high and above the axis of tilt. This guarantees maximal potential energy for the structure in labile balance which is conducive to easy function. Mobility and stability relate reciprocally – are mutually exclusive – in the mechanical view.

While the theory prescribes a horizontal pelvis for normal structure, the aforegoing considerations have already intimated that a structurally horizontal pelvis does not exist in the absolute sense in reality. Several arguments support this statement. Purely logically, Ida Rolf?s statement that the normal pattern is a “Platonic Idea” (Rolf, p.16) can and perhaps should be taken serious. The relevant feature of Plato’s system is here that the two worlds of the “ideal” and the “real” are forever separate. The “real” can never become “ideal”. The concept of labile balance in physics constitutes such an absolute ideal which can never be reached absolutely by real bodies. The “anatomical” argument would hold that there exists no absolute symmetry in organisms. It is very distinct when considering bilateral symmetry. When one examines two corresponding bones, the femora e.g., it becomes obvious that they are very far from being symmetrical. The point of view leads to realizing that the vertical and the horizontals, the “Platonic Ideas” discovered by Ida Rolf, are of immeasurable value as guidelines for orientation in the structural confusion anybody presents, but that it would be severely misunderstanding their nature if one intended to implement them absolutely in the flesh.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-1.jpg’>
Fig.1

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-2.jpg’>
Fig.2

The point is supported perhaps most strongly by a physiological argument which could be characterized by a principle that “nature abhors ambiguity”. Organisms and many of their constituent sub-units can be regarded as self-regulating systems. They oscillate around a median value, a center point, its bias. A disturbance takes the system away from its bias, and when it has ceased the system swings back to center again. Mechanical systems are said to be in stable equilibrium. The horizontal pelvis on the legs of Fig.1 is in labile equilibrium or balance. If disturbed, it tilts all the way down and never comes back on its own. It is held in labile balance or near it by musculature. This is subject to neuronal control. For the pelvis-on-legs system it is characteristic that the anterior and posterior tilts are part of two qualitatively different patterns. Gravity will push down an anteriorly tilted pelvis in front, a posteriorly tilted one in back. In each case muscles will hold up the pelvis against gravity, but the muscular patterns through the whole body are completely different for the two kinds of tilt. The neutral point separates the two different systems sharply qualitatively. This means that there is no smooth transition from the anterior to the posterior tilt pattern and vice versa but that there is a sudden and total switch in the structural and functional pattern when the pelvis passes through the neutral point.

The direction and degree of the structural tilt can be regarded as the bias set for the system. When the pelvis is tilted down a little more, a certain set of muscles will tense a little more and bring the pelvis back to home. If it goes up a little, tonus reduction in the same set of muscles will alow gravity to take it back to home again. The central nervous system (CNS) regulates the system by quantitative changes within one and the same muscular pattern. But also the sensory pattern which informs the CNS about which efferent activity is called for is also one and the same, with data only differing quantitatively on a sliding scale. Moreover, regulation doesn’t have to be very exact.

When a hypothetical system with a horizontal pelvis is considered, the situation looks very different. At the neutral point, its bias, it would be in perfect labile balance. Every microscopic disturbance would initiate a microscopic tilt in one or the other direction. It would instantly be reinforced by gravity to become a macroscopic movement. The tilt would be checked muscularly by an appropriate pattern, and the pelvis would be brought back up to neutral, home. If it is supposed that horizontality had been restored exactly a rather unlikely event -, the next disturbance would have a 50:50 chance to tilt the pelvis microscopically in the other direction with reinforcement by gravity following promptly. A different set of proprioceptors would generate a totally different sensory input pattern, and an equally different tonus pattern of the musculature would bring the pelvis back to horizontal. So with such a system the CNS would have to be prepared at every instant to receive one of two completely unrelated patterns of sensory input, and it would all the time have to be ready to choose the appropriate motor pattern before it could even begin “considering” the appropriate quantity of tension demanded. All in all, the expenditure for the CNS would be immensely larger than in a system with a preference for one side of tilt without much gain, if any.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-3.jpg’>
Fig.3 – Four different poses of identical structure; from left to right: internal and external free stance, sleeve-supported internal and external stance. Which kind of stance expresses structure best, or: to which kind of stance is the structure adapted?

This can be approximated experientially in the following way. Well integrated bodies can tilt the pelvis relatively easily forward and back. It is not an unpleasant exercise if done in a slow rhythm with low amplitudes, as if the movement came by itself. This is conditional to sensing clearly the neutral point, where the pelvis goes over the top. It will be noted that the exercise engages the CNS considerably; it takes concentration. But this is still an easy version for the CNS because the rhythm is regular and slow, and the switchover of the patterns can be anticipated. Even then, when one adds an activity like walking or typing it becomes too absorbing. The body drops it and sets the pelvis to its structural bias in order to be able to function.

So the body has and needs a structural preference for the pelvic tilt, either anterior or posterior. Even if we assumed that a pelvis was rendered horizontal in an absolute sense, the body would select one direction of tilt functionally. This would seep into structure quickly and result in a structural tilt again. A consequence of this view is that a statement like “the pelvis is more horizontal” which is geometrically impossible makes sense structurally. It should also have become evident that first the direction of tilt must be determined. Only then the question becomes relevant of how much it is tilted anterior or posterior.

Determining the Direction of Tilt

Ida Rolf stated repeatedly that the pelvis is horizontal when the line between the tip of the pubic bone and the tip of the coccyx is horizontal (p-c line). In our context this line could be used to determine the kind of tilt: if it is slanted down in front the tilt is anterior, if it is slanted down in back posterior. The suggestion seems never to have been taken serious. In fact, it can be dismissed elegantly without doing harm to its author. It can be held that the inclination of the sacrum with respect to the bony pelvic ring varies extremely, and that nearly every coccyx is distorted, often to a great degree. It can be contended that the statement might be valid, but only if the position of the sacrum and the shape of the coccyx were perfectly normal. To state such a normalcy would always be arbitrary to some degree. But then, Ida Rolf s original statement is already arbitrary. There is no natural law which would call for the p-c line to be horizontal. Still, her intuitive understanding of structure was so far-reaching that the notion seems to deserve more attention than it has got.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-4.jpg’>
Fig.4

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-5.jpg’>
Fig.5

When it is examined whether the slant of the p-c line is suited to indicate the pelvic tilt, two problems arise which need special scrutiny. When the slant has been determined, this finding must be correlated with the actual tilt of the pelvis. This in turn must have been determined by other and independent means which must have been shown to be relevant and reliable. In Structural Integration gravity is the last and decisive arbiter for such questions and represents an absolute criterion in principle. This concedes that in practice questions turn up with using gravity, too. They blend with the second problem raised by deciding the slanting of the p-c line. Since function is always present in reality and cannot be abstracted from by simply ignoring it, a certain posture must be chosen in which the slant is determined. Fig.3 exemplifies the problem: the model with an internal structure and congruent structural tilt can choose postures in which the pelvis is tilted anteriorly as well as such in which the tilt is posterior. Stance is function, and it needs to be standardized to produce consistent results, preferably in a manner which expresses structure best or in the most natural way.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-6.jpg’>
Fig.6 – External and internal structure in sleeve-supported stance.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-7.jpg’>
Fig.7 – The “inverted pendulum”. The segment of a circle indicates the path of the gravity center of the pelvis. It is proportional to potential energy. When the pelvis swings forward beyond the notch of stable equilibrium in sleeve-supported stance, its path will continue along the dotted line but potential energy increases because of elastic energy of the sleeve.

The following goes from considerations made elsewhere concerning the “structural point” on the “postural curve” (Notes on S.I. 87/1, p.30 and 31). Fig.4 presents a very simple model of the body consisting of two rigid parts only, the upper body and the legs, connected by the hip joint. (The feet as a third part and the ankle joint are not relevant in this context.) The upper body compensates the inclination of the legs by slanting the opposite way if the gravity center of the whole system and the support point are to remain on the same vertical as in standing straight. When the pelvis is shifted anteriorly, gravity will push it forward more; when it is shifted posteriorly, it will be pushed back further. For anatomical reasons the two modes of standing are distinguished sharply in the way they behave. The collaps of that with the pelvis anterior will be stopped sooner or later because the hip joint cannot hyperextend much. The fall is stopped passively by the fascia in the general sense. There is no such restriction with the posterior pelvis system which will collapse completely. The mechanics for the anterior pelvis system are shown in Fig.5. The vector of the weight of the upper body comes from above and behind. It splits somewhere at the level of the pelvis into one going forward – it is not necessarily exactly horizontal – and another one going down along the leg axis. The vector pointing forward is caught by the sleeve in front which compensates the forward thrust by passive tension along its vertical dimension. We call this “sleeve supported stance” although the term may not be entirely correct. With some persons it seems to be mostly the outer layers of fasciae which are short and rigid and so check the forward thrust. With others these outer layers are soft and it is clearly the deep ligaments in front of the hip joint which catch the anterior push. It is doubtful if they can be subsumed under “sleeve”. However, a functional aspect warrants the term. For, the large outer muscles ensheathed in the sleeve, especially the abdominals, seem to modulate the sleeve-supported stance. By tensing selectively the sleeve they regulate the body to be collapsed forward into it more or to a lesser degree.

The vector which transmits the weight down along the thigh axis arrives at the knee from above and in front. It pushes the knee back. In an analogous way, with directions reversed, the part of the vector pointing back can be caught by the fascia in back of the knee. So, frequently the sleeve-supported stance leads to the locked-knee type. The body hangs in the ropes like a groggy boxer, with one rope strung in front of the pelvis, the other behind the knees.

With externals, who have a posterior pelvic tilt, sleeve-supported stance appears almost habitual as far as the pelvis is concerned. The forward thrust is a little below the hip joint, around the level of the tuberosities. With internals and their anterior pelvic tilt, the forward thrust is above the hip joint, around the level of the iliac crest. The lumbar segment is actually more forward than the pelvis, it “hangs through”. The mechanics are less favorable for sleeve-supported stance than for externals in that less of the upper body is available to counteract a larger lower body leaning forward (Fig.6). This may be part of the reason why there seem to be less internal than external locked knee types and why they appear to lean forward more on their feet.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-8.jpg’>
Fig.8 – Energy necessary to maintain the pelvis of a normal structure in stances with anterior and posterior shift.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-9.jpg’>
Fig.9 – Same curves for internal (dotted line) and external structure (dashed line). The low point of the curves (structural point) takes the least energy in free stance but is greater than zero.

The structure adapted to sleeve-supported stance runs into problems when movement is considered. It is possible to walk in that manner, but internals especially begin to look strange already: the belly leading, the chest swayed back, and the legs dragging along behind. So the majority of internals who like to stand in sleeve-support switch their pelvis to behind the Line in walking as is demanded by the theory of normal movement. When more strenuous and complicated movements call for strict balance – as in a skier racing downhill – the posterior pelvis is mandatory functionally and the structurally anterior pelvis is at a disadvantage.

Figure 7 depicts the situation in an even simpler model. The pelvis is assumed to be fixed to rigid legs. The system can be thought of as a pendulum standing on its tip rotating around the ankle axis. The gravity center of the pelvis can only move along the segment of a circle. This line also indicates the potential energy of the system which is proportional to its height above ground. If the circle is imagined to represent a clock, the “normal pendulum” points to 12 o’clock. It is in a state of labile equilibrium. When the pendulum falls posterior, it will end up at 3 o’clock – on its behind. When it falls anterior, it will be stopped at perhaps 11:30 by the sleeve resisting as described. The pelvis can be pushed farther forward by muscles or, more frequently, by an upward movement of the arm as in lifting or by taking a simple step. The weight coming down bends the body forward more like a bow. When the muscles relax or the vertical force has passed, the pelvis is brought back to the low point of the dent in the curve. In other words, sleeve-supported stance provides a stable equilibrium. When the disturbance is forward – the bow is bent more – the stored elastic energy will bring the pelvis back passively. When the disturbance is posterior – the pendulum goes toward 12 o’clock gravity will also bring the pelvis back (forward down) to equilibrium passively.

So, important differences exist between sleeve-supported stance and “free” or “normal” stance at the structural point. The first provides stable balance, the second labile balance. In the first, disturbances need no muscular reaction, in the second every disturbance must be counterbalanced muscularly which involves CNS activity. Therefore and secondly, sleeve-supported stance is economical in two ways. It takes relatively little energy to maintain posture. A perfectly normal structure at the point of labile equilibrium would not need much energy, perhaps less, but this is different with real structures. Fig.8 relates energy expenditure of the perfectly normal structure to pelvic shift. On the anterior shift side the stable pocket of sleeve-supported stance is shown. The main curve is the postural curve given originally. It differs in appearance here because not only the distance to vertical is indicated but the two poles of that dimension are shown, anterior and posterior shift. The line is broken to point out an observation one can make experientially: if one shifts from sleeve-supported to free stance, there is no smooth transition between what could be called two different “regimes”. That means that the difference is also qualitative, from one certain overall pattern in the body and its tonus pattern to another, distinctly diverse one. The knees give, the thorax must be brought forward actively, etc.

In Figure 9 two hypothetical curves for external and internal structures are shown. Generally the structural point, the easiest way of standing in the “free regime” not supported by the sleeve, is on the anterior shift side for externals, on the posterior shift side for internals. The illustration could also illuminate the apparent aspect that externals go into sleeve-supported stance and back much more often and easily than internals: the “bridge” they have to pass over is much lower and shorter; they have much less reshuffling of the body segments to do than internals. The illustration further indicates that sleeve-supported stance is more economical energetically than free stance. For well integrated bodies this difference is small, it may even be inverted. But the fact that one regime is in stable, the other in labile equilibrium, may explain another phenomenon. Even bodies that can stand easily at their structural point sometimes go into sleeve-supported stance. This seems to happen when people are mentally tired, have problems to “concentrate”. Then this stance provides its second economical advantage, that it is much less demanding on the CNS for maintenance. An appraisal of neurological economy displays the following succession: sleeve-supported stance (1) doesn’t involve the CNS at all over a fair range of disturbances in both directions, at least in principle. In practice CNS activity regulating stance will be low. Standing at the structural point (2) obliges the CNS to be more active constantly. Finally, normal standing of a hypothetical normal structure (3) would be utterly demanding. If physical energy is at question, (1) and (3) rate very favorably, (2) less so. For movement, the succession would be (3), (2), and (1).

Considerations concerning stance are relevant because not infrequently tests using gravity disclose opposite tilts in the two regimes. More often, a posterior tilt in sleeve-supported stance reverts to an anterior tilt in the normal regime, but we have also found the opposite behavior. We believe that the “true” tilt must be determined in free stance at the structural point. We do so for two reasons without contending that our choice is absolutely the only one; the question deserves further examination and discussion. First, most people don’t stand still with feet at the same height for longer periods of time. They shift and move usually, and the structure in movement is a more important concern of Structural Integration than a structure adapted for standing if the two are in contradiction. Secondly, the template of an integrated structure is vertical, and since Rolfing intends to change structure towards vertical the restrictions found closer to the norm are more immediately and poignantly relevant for deciding on the course of change.

The majority of people asked to stand “erect but easy” choose sleeve-supported stance. They first have to be brought to the normal regime. The second task is to find the structural point. There is such a point for everybody and it is characterized by maximal muscular relaxation the given structure permits. The feature the pelvis displays at this point is that it is maximally free. It can tilt forward and back easiest. We habitually use a test to convince clients quickly of the advantages of free stance(l). Standing beside them, we put one flat hand on the chest, the other on the upper back. We sense for the feet on the floor and then push down vertically balancing front and back. This should not be done too quickly but sensitively so the client feels what’s coming. In sleeve-supported stance the body bends forward at the level of the pelvis. The pelvis is fixed, almost immobile in the sleeve. A lot of strength is needed if the bending is to be resisted. Moreover, it is difficult to anticipate the bending. The CNS seems “asleep”, it first has to spring into action and only then can select the appropriate muscles to counter the forward thrust.

The structural point is sought by rocking the pelvis very lightly and not too slowly down in front and in back with the hands on the pubes and the back of the pelvis. Care must be taken not to induce shifting. When the hands then push down vertically from above, clients sense clearly that the ground supports them they feel the pressure on the soles of the feet – and that no effort is needed. Trying to hold up actively against the vertical push counteracts the purpose. When the downward pressure is very strong, they can control optimal stance by very slightly and as easily as possible rocking their pelvis. Anticipation is best when they relax the whole musculature as much as possible. The principle could be called “stability through relaxation”. The optimal arrangement of the body in the gravity field is a prerequisite.

Looking at Reality

The original idea was to compare the finding by functional tests with that from palpating the p-c line independently. One of us would do the palpation, the other the tests. It showed right away that this procedure was impractical. Stance changes subtly and not so subtly all the time, and so it was not possible for one examinator to place the client at the structural point and for the other to come in and palpate. Moreover, when palpating in this area some muscles always tense at least a little and it is then necessary to reestablish the structural point with hands on pubes and coccyx. Doing so betrays the direction of the tilt by the quality of the movements. So it was not possible to separate the two methods.

Instead, we decided that each of us would determine the direction of tilt independently by both methods noting concordance or discordances. Results would then be compared. We could not exclude that the functional tests which we consider more informative would bias our palpatory finding. This weakness was partly balanced by our awareness that the other would probably be very critical about this point.

Palpation was done sitting or kneeling beside the client. The hand in front came from above, palm down, to sense the cranial margin of the pubes and the anterior edge. The hand in back came from behind and cranial, palm up, sliding with the fingers along the two lateral edges of the coccyx towards the tip. After reestablishing the structural point heights above ground were compared. We used three functional tests.

Comparative Tilting

The client is asked to tilt the pelvis anterior and posterior several times slowly with minimal effort. The pelvis should rotate alone, in isolation. The primary movement should be seen and felt between LO and S1, the joint going forward and back. This can often not be done clearly because the joint is very often not mobile enough in random bodies. Care must be taken not to allow shift, or at least to keep it minimal. The rest of the body should adapt “imperceptibly” only. Often the movement comes from above first, from the chest, instead of “from inside the pelvis”.

The movement on the side of the structural tilt can be felt and observed to be clearer, easier, smoother, and farther. It actually happens by muscle relaxation, gravity doing the work, while the opposite direction is “uphill”, it requires muscles to contract. If the preference is not clear, a strong variation can be tried: the pelvis is rotated forcefully down in front and down in back. Tilting can be assisted by the Rolfer’s hands. The client is asked to let the Rolfer do the tilting of the pelvis and to try not to resist. Some clients learn only then what the movement feels like they are being asked to do. The client’s subjective sense of the preference and the Rolfer’s observation should coincide.

Suspension Test

The client is asked to extend against the floor with the feet remaining soft, pushing them into the ground so that the back of the top of the head rises. Chest and pelvis must not go forward, the sleeve should actually relax. The hands are on the chest and the upper back helping the client to keep the upper body in space where it is after extension. He is asked to imagine the pelvis being suspended from it in front and in back, by the abdominal wall and the back muscles. The image of a kettle hanging over the fire or a lamp bowl suspended from the ceiling is often helpful. When he relaxes both front and back suspension, the pelvis drops a little in front or back depending on what the structural tilt is.

The rationale is that by extending against the floor along the central line all the segments are pulled – not pushed! – a little closer to the central axis, horizontalizing some. When released and if the shift is kept again minimal, the pelvis tilts into its structural preference. Extension is sometimes not easy or even impossible with inexperienced clients who have not learned to lengthen through the middle. The “tooth paste tube effect”, where the sleeve is tensed to force the segments toward the central line, gives of course no valid results.

Compression Test

This begins like the suspension test with extension against the floor through the center of the body. The client is asked to sense his legs as firm posts which don’t give. Then he lowers the weight of the upper body slowly and vertically down on the pelvis which becomes compressed between upper body and legs. The weight
pushes the front or back down according to how the structural tilt is.

This test is difficult because the pelvis tends to be pushed out forward or back more than being tilted. It is actually better suited for demonstrating pelvic shift.

Testing the concepts in the way described showed soon that there was a sizable majority of clients which presented no problems. We diagnosed the same direction of tilt, and all four parameters pointed the same way. Two complications emerged, however. The first was of a technical nature and consisted in disparities among the functional tests. It showed that the postural conditions could not always be realized in an unambiguous and exact manner. The suspension and the compression test sometimes contradicted the findings by comparative tilting. The reason was partly a lack of certainty with shift. Slight shifting forward or back of the pelvis would change the result. But perhaps the shift close to neutral produced different results with different tests. This would be explained by the relative neglect of the rest of the body which of course also influences the situation at the pelvis. The problem was partially solved by comparing the two possibilities. The intention was explained to the clients, and they were then asked to produce both the anterior and posterior tilt outcome of the suspension and compression test. This cleared the situation sometimes because the clients and we were able to decide which option came more natural and easy.

This made another problem more obvious, however. Even with experience in instructing and using the hands for help, the movement proved too sophisticated and subtle to do for some clients. This led us to mainly rely on the comparative tilting method. There it was less difficult to eliminate ambiguity. The main source for mistakes is there with the “swinging pelvis”. When tilting posteriorly, the pelvis swings forward, shifts anteriorly, and vice versa with tilting anteriorly. The pelvis swings like the wooden seat of a children’s swing. This was remedied by one hand on the pubes which kept the pelvis back and even pushed back a little when tilting posteriorly and the other on the upper sacrum for the anterior tilt.

But even then some clients remained where we disagreed. This culminated in the client shown in Fig.10 who was diagnosed as an anterior tilt by all criteria by one of us and as a posterior tilt by equal congruence of signs by the other. Perhaps it was not by chance that the internal of us found an anterior tilt, the external a posterior tilt. It turned out that this client shows a clear anterior tilt with the pelvis just a little behind the Line and a posterior tilt with the pelvis slightly in front of the Line. Moreover, she is able to switch the pelvis across the Line forth and back very easily and almost imperceptibly. Subjectively external posture was the “home position” for her.

Further observation revealed two characteristics which might be responsible for not being able to diagnose the tilt clearly. The client has had ten sessions by another Rolfer and four more by one of us. Her structure seems well integrated. Secondly, her internal and external characteristics are not very marked. The legs and the spine tend more toward internal, the pelvis, also intrasegmentally, and the chest are more of the external kind. Whether this is primary or due to Rolfing we don’t know.

So the structural tilts difficult or uncertain to diagnose and not rooted strongly may be characteristic for well integrated bodies. But there are other kinds of structures which are similarly hard to diagnose. They seem to belong to such bodies extremely adapted to sleeve-supported stance. These structures are so far away from normal that placing them in free stance close to normal entails unnatural relationships all through the body. This tends to make behavior unpredictable. It also puts into question our method of using approximately normal stance as the reference point.

Concluding Remarks

The concepts described here and testing them result in several aspects of the question being made clearer or rendering the problems more concrete. First of all, it was argued that a horizontal pelvis in the absolute sense does not exist. Enquiry demonstrated that with some clients the pelvis is “sufficiently” horizontal to make it difficult or perhaps even impossible to determine a defined tilt. So practice can be thought to vindicate theory in a certain sense! But it must be clearly discerned that difficulty of diagnosing tilt does not automatically mean that a structure is well integrated. This also happens when a structure is very far away from normal, overadapted to sleeve-supported stance, so-to-speak. This implies that it is premature and not justifiable to assign one of the two tilts to all and every pelvis. The dynamics around normal and those of sleeve-supported structures are not understood well enough.

Another result which is rather amazing is that the p-c line follows closely the diagnostics by functional tests notwithstanding the theoretical reservations. It can sometimes not be defined with certainty, especially in “close cases”, but usually it changes direction of slant dutifully with functional reversals of tilt by shifting the pelvis. We have not found a p-c line contradicting clearly the findings by functional tests. So it appears that Ida Rolf s intuition was a good hunch. The horizontality of the p-c line is a good concept. However, she was very much concerned with structural questions and did not pay much attention to functional differences. When the concept is applied to real structures, function in the form of posture cannot be neglected and assumes great relevance. So when the p-c line is to be determined, it is essential that posture be standardized first. This leads to functional considerations and eventually the tests described. They attempt to regulate function – stance – using gravity as the referee so that structure is revealed. Examining function with the goal in mind of unfolding the picture of structure in gravity leads to more important concepts which are however very orthodox: It leads to the functional tests which permit to describe structure from observing its behavior under the influence of gravity when function has been standardized. The p-c line loses importance in practice because to assess it with some acuity is conditional to determining the relationship between gravity and structure first, which by itself gives more important information.

Another feature of tilt was brought very much in evidence. The anterior and posterior pelvic tilts are in no way symmetrical but form an important aspect of two entirely different systems: the internal and external structures. It also became obvious that the anterior tilt can be remedied very quickly. With uncomplicated internals – a term in need of definition the pelvis is often horizontalized to a sufficient degree fast. Now and then even one session is enough so that horizontalizing the pelvis is not an issue anymore and can be forgotten. When getting obsessed by it there is even the danger of trying to convert an anterior tilt to a posterior one by all means which of course leads to disintegration. It is not so long ago that we assumed every pelvis to be tilted anteriorly and “horizontalized” it no end. The sometimes disastrous results are still visible when now and then a client of some years ago comes back and we realize that his pelvis has always been tilted posteriorly! This is different with externals. The pelvis tilted posteriorly can as a rule not be normalized fast. It is regularly a focus for the whole basic series, and even after that. It seems to drop down much farther, and consequently putting it on top of the femora takes much more. It involves the whole body while often with the anterior tilt lengthening of tensor/rectus/sartorius, adductors, and iliacus provides the major step for normalizing the pelvis.

This peculiarity seems to have to do with the observation that internals are generally a tension-dominated system while with externals collapse and compression are the prevalent features. Internals often profit a little from general relaxation techniques, a good massage or an hour in the samadhi tank, not only functionally by the reduction of muscle tone but also a little structurally. With externals muscle relaxation and reducing passive tension in the fasciae often results in more collapse, which must be counteracted by effort again. So with externals geometry is much more of an issue, and a better understanding of their mechanics is essential.

The tilt of the pelvis has been treated in this paper in relative isolation. But is should have become clearer that it is not only related to the whole of structure but very intimately with functional considerations, too. Naturally this is essential, in a symptomatic as well as causal sense, for understanding the whole body structure better. Diagnosing the pelvic tilt correctly is not only a prerequisite for normalizing the pelvis but also for integrating the whole body.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1988/1027-10.jpg’>
Fig.10 – Model showing an anterior or posterior tilt by all parameters depending on whether the shift is a little posterior or anterior.

Notes

1. This is not indoctrination. Nobody we know can stand or move at the structural point all the time. We encourage clients to recreate standing at the structural point when they so desire. But we warn them not to do this for more than half a minute at a time but to forget it and focus on something other than the* body. After a very short time of concentrating they will begin to “hold on” to the structural point. This invariably involves muscle activity and so immediately defeats the purpose.