Dance is superior to repetitive physical exercise for brain plasticity (2018)
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
"Dancing compared to conventional fitness activity led to larger volume increases in more brain areas, including the cingulate cortex, insula, corpus callosum and sensorimotor cortex. Only dancing was associated with an increase in plasma BDNF levels. Regarding cognition, both groups improved in attention and spatial memory, but no significant group differences emerged. The latter finding may indicate that cognitive benefits may develop later and after structural brain changes have taken place."
May I translate: They saw improvements in things they could easily measure. They hope this translate into improved cognitive ability. But it actually didn't. But they still hope it'll do that later.
(FWIW: I'm an active Lindy Hop dancer - ok, I have been before covid... - I love dancing and I am really looking forward to when I can visit dance festivals again.)
In the states the biggies are: Camp Hollywood (lotta pool time, lotta drinking) Lindy Focus (christmas -> new years, it's nuts) Nevermore (my personal favorite) Camp Jitterbug (used to be super relevent as the contest weekend event, sorta on the decline/ not sure) Lindyfest has some nice peeps at it Camp
the biggest is Herrang in sweden, it's the lindy hop mecca trip.
Also check out: https://www.swingplanit.com/
Lindy on the Rocks in Denver is usually pretty good. There’s a huge swing dance community in the Front Range.
Yeah the party scene is a bit nuts but you don't have to be a part of that.
I'm confused by this part. How does the "latter finding" indicate that benefits may develop later? The "latter finding" is that there hasn't been any benefits yet. Does that suggest anything whatsoever about what will happen later?
Seriously, though, I think the researchers were trying to put a positive spin on a negative result but went too far.
But yeah, getting into lindy hop 15 years ago was literally the best thing that ever happened to me. It's incredible, being able to go to any major city on the planet and instantly finding a community.
Contradance is where I tend to start totally new dancers. The community tends to be extremely welcoming. Most dances have an expectation that experienced dancers will spend at least part of the evening dancing with newcomers and trying to get them up to speed and comfortable. Once they've got the sense of weight and motion, then you can drag them off to swing, ballroom, or whatever else, but it really is an incredibly effective setting for instilling some fundamentals and confidence.
It's also interesting because you can go from Virginia to Washington state and walk into a contradance and wonder if you traveled at all.
I find your translation misleading. They did see improved cognitive ability, just not superior to the conventional fitness program at the time of measuring. Increased BDNF, which stands for brain-derived neurotrophic factor, is actually pretty significant so they are not pulling potential future development from thin air.
Mind you the sample population is the elderly, for which the prospect of neural growth/protection is pretty important, and this might have further applications to other populations such as recovering alcoholics, methamphetamine users, and even depression/anxiety sufferers where hippocampal volume decrease is indicated.
For me the key question is: what is the key ingredient (or the right mix of ingredients)? E.g. is it having a programme to follow (having aims/duties is known to increase longevity, see the famous 'plant study')? Or rhythmic fluid movements (so like tai chi or qi gong or yoga)? Or the combination with music (multimodal stimulation)? Or the social component of dancing (so e.g. encouraging proximity like mutual hair brushing, engagement that encourages touch, etc)?
Fascinating and raises many new questions. But it's clear the most deadly thing is probably inactivity.
If this is the case then the results should also generalise to sports, which have an aspect of sensory enrichment and coordinative challenge.
But I agree with you, it would be very interesting to actually find out what the “key ingredients” are. Especially since dance is so diverse and difficult to define. In fact, I think the category of dance can be best described using Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance. There is not one essential common feature between all forms of dance, instead there are a lot of overlapping aspects.
https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/2014/11/05/re-examining-elle...
Langer gave houseplants to two groups of nursing-home residents. She told one group that they were responsible for keeping the plant alive and that they could also make choices about their schedules during the day. She told the other group that the staff would care for the plants, and they were not given any choice in their schedules. Eighteen months later, twice as many subjects in the plant-caring, decision-making group were still alive than in the control group. To Langer, this was evidence that the biomedical model of the day — that the mind and the body are on separate tracks — was wrongheaded.
As a personal experience with ballet for over 5 years (starting in mid-twenties with no prior dance experience, and taking up other modalities later), it has completely reorganized my mind; now I have a strong and reliable memory for body movement, now I have a durable sense of sequentiality that I apply to everything I do (the gains are most apparent when doing many chores, cooking, getting ready for an overseas trip, etc), so that my consciousness is well ordered and doesn't get confused with simultaneity of inputs, but knows how to prioritize easily and without my ostensive effort. It's a bit like having trained a highly capable assistant that now takes over for many tasks that would previously leave my head dizzy with an influx of urgent demands.
Some of this applies to music and learning an instrument, especially not a woodwind, melody-only on, but a coordinating instrument like piano or other strings, especially if you are singing on top of the harmonny. Both dance and music are fundamentally about harmony, in dance you harmonize your body parts relative to each other and to the dance, and in choreographies like ballet, even more so to the other dancers, requiring exacting precision and balance.
Yoga and the classic dances are hard stuff, taxing the mental faculties. It may only not seems so outwardly because so many natural dancers start from early ages, and like learning a language, any mildly talented person starting so early will achieve ease eventually. But building that ease for late starters is much tougher than, say, programming a single page app, if I may be so bold.
Interesting that you mention flamenco [1]. I started dancing flamenco 8 years ago, at age 42. I am a late starter to dance, which is a polite way of saying I actively avoided it for most of my life.
When I started, I could barely put together a half-dozen steps. And if I tried to add arm, hand or head movements, my feet went out of time. My brain just didn't feel big enough There was no way I could remember even a tiny section of a choreography like this one I link to from Marco Flores.
Yet as I got more experienced, my brain gradually adjusted to think of body movements as integrated flows, not individual motions. It learnt how to "chunk" them together into logical sequences, and how they align to a piece of music. Much to my surprise, I can now remember complex choreographies several minutes long.
My next challenge is to internalize all of this, so I can relax and dance more comfortably. Maybe I'll never get good enough to improvise dancing with a guitarist and singer. But looking back, I am thrilled how far I've come.
[1] Since few people here will be familiar with flamenco, here is a clip of Spanish dancer Marco Flores performing a Seguiriya: https://youtu.be/ajVmaj6Z93o?t=397.
Notice how Marco beats out what appears a chaotic rhythm with his feet, yet it keeps coming back to the strict beat clapped out by the singer. If you try to follow along, note the rhythm here has a 5-beat bar: 1-and, 2-and, 3-and-a, 4-and-a, 5-and. So the 1, 2 and 5 are short, and 3 and 4 are long.
Also, some versions of the opera Carmen has almost an hour-long flamenco part, it's worth watching, a good french opera.
Then I danced salsa and butchata when I moved university and it made me much more sociable. Whether or not its translated to cognitive ability, I'll never know. But it has translated to confidence and sociability, and it's a great way to get out if my own head and have fun.
The best way I can describe dancing to non-practitioners is that it's like playing a silent, wearable musical instrument that demands attention from your entire body.
It is not like playing a sport, except perhaps if you do it competitively :-)
Some people cant see their own bias I guess. :)
Not sure why you jumped to the conclusion that someone saying "X is not like playing a sport" is a claim that "sports are trivially easy compared to X". I don't think the parent comment was claiming that at all, just that they're different, namely that dance is not inherently competitive.
As someone who plays basketball and tennis, it takes a lot of focus to pay attention to my whole body for an entire practice session (vs. just a single part that I'm trying to improve). Most of the time, if I don't explicitly try to pay attention, I just use muscle memory and try to get into "the zone".
In tennis for example, I only need to pay maximal attention when learning a stroke (although of course it's beneficial to pay attention to every body part when just regularly playing - it's not necessary, and certainly something that a lot of recreational players don't do). Whereas with dance, it's required that you pay attention to your entire body for the entire practice session to memorize a choreography.
I think that's the difference that's important for this paper. If my elderly dad were to play basketball, he might rely on muscle memory. Whereas, if his nursing home taught dance classes, he would definitively have to pay attention to all of his body parts.
it == dancing && it != sport
dancing.entails(entire_body)
sport.entails(entire_body)
Clearer now?I want you to read this entire sentence, including the part after "except". I want you to tell me what you think that last clause means.
> It is not like playing a sport, except perhaps if you do it competitively
Do you think there is perhaps the slightest chance that they did not intend to say that "playing a sport does not require control of your entire body"?
Is there even a tiny possibility that they said that dancing non-competitively is not like playing a sport, perhaps because they are including competition in the definition of sport?
> Some people cant see their own bias I guess. :)
Agreed.
To get that good you need discipline and dance for years (or just be a natural), so don't seem that far fetched to be at a similar difficulty level as sports in this regard.
I'm sure that's not always a net negative, but I can say it hurt my dancing during the few times I've tried it competitively.
Partner dancing - at least leading - is definitely on the higher side :-)
There are several factors. Leaders must endure months where they can do little or nothing, and they have to do it among people who always look great - if they social dance; if they don't, their learning time increases.
Then there's a lot of pressure of performing with and for somebody who's usually of the opposite sex (this applies also to follows).
It takes a lot (internally) before feeling comfortable enough to "simply enjoy".
Playing an instrument or practicing an individual sport doesn't have such pressures.
Video is a brutal but effective teacher for those who are not easily discouraged.
For leaders to build up a good vocabulary of moves requires a lot more than weekly practice though.
And fundamentals as a lead can be learned by dancing with intention.
I've been an amateur dancer for years, and definitely, for what I personally intend for "competent", it takes 2/3 years at least, with multiple times per week of practice, a few workshops every year etc.etc.
There's certainly some people who dance pretty much daily and gets good in less than an year, some people with background in physical activities (sports or arts) who also get good quickly... but they're exceptions.
I personally support this theory; ultimately, in a very basic form, both dance and sport are grounded on physical coordination.
That said, professional athletes I've known pay a lot of attention to their specific form when doing actions to minimize energy and maximize power.
It appears to me to be the difference between actively managing how your body moves versus just letting it do what ever to get the action done.
Snowboarding, downhill skiing, mountain biking, and any martial art. These are from personal experience, I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.
Even weight training, which is an experimental group in this article, when done properly, requires high levels of neuro-muscular coordination and development. I am always weary of studies that evaluate “strength training” because there are so many different approaches with wildly different outcomes. Let’s just say that a max effort squat by an athlete with around two years of proper training emphasizing technique requires a hell of a lot more coordination than busting a move on the dance floor. I’ve been weight training for 15 years and I still feel like I am learning something new every time I get under the bar with the right mindset. The mindset part is key, because if you are just going through the motions then you’re not developing new skills. But I would bet a lot of money that top level strength athletes would say that their form is far from “perfect” and that this the area that affords the biggest opportunity for improvement.
This is the part where I’m going to be brash. Unless you tell me exactly what defines a strength training regimen in your study, I will assume it’s something along the lines of curls and lunges done with tiny dumbbells over a large amount of reps. Especially if your study calls it “repetitive”. There’s nothing repetitive about proper strength training. Every rep that’s done mindfully affords a unique learning opportunity.
Sports simply too complex to categorize in simple terms like “dancing” or “resistance training”. In the context of experimental design, our definitions have to be much more precise.
Having said all that, this is how I interpret this article: “Learning complex motor skills that require high levels of attention is better for the brain than doing 100 curls with 3 lb dumbbells.” And my response to that is “no shit”.
I practice Olympic lifting (total beginner) and I have to concentrate so much during exercises. Take for instance the snatch movement [1] which is my personal favorite and one of the hardest (in my opinion)
Also I find weightlifting very addictive: when you do the movement successfully is very rewarding. When you get it wrong you can't wait to try again next time
So I mean, it's hard to have someone just come in and say: "nope the data is wrong my opinion of this activity I am biased towards as I practice it myself is right", and not be somewhat skeptical. Yes, this is a small preliminary study, maybe the type of strength training was responsible for the failings, etc. But it's still much more substantial then someone's opinion.
Could you suggest a source on this? One that presents this sort of approach to resistance training, ideally for relative newcomers?
> Each session included three different units: endurance training, strength-endurance training and flexibility training. Each unit lasted 20 minutes. The endurance training was performed on bicycle ergometers with the intensity adjusted to the individual training heart frequency. The strength-endurance unit implied training with equipment such as barbells, rubber bands, Redondo balls, gymnastic sticks and fitness balls. We avoided combined arm and leg movements in order to keep coordinative demands low.
So ya, they did try and keep coordinative movement to a minimum by avoiding full body movements. That said, I'm not convinced that that any weightlifting, which can be administered to elderly people, would ever reach the coordinative demand and sensory/cognitive levels that dance does.
Also, something that doesn't improves an elderly's brain plasticity doesn't mean that weight lifting or other more repetitive form of exercise are not beneficial in any other way. Brain plasticity is not the be all and end all of health. I think strength training has an already well established level of other health benefits, brain plasticity might not be one though.
I recently took up dancing to improve my fight game. I went in thinking it would just be a fun/different way of working on footwork, I was quickly amazed how it is very different to most the other sports I've tried.
Someone else mentioned musical instruments on this HN post - I think that might be it. Dancing is a musical instrument where you trade sound for expressivity in your body. So suddenly you've taken a sport and you have layered rhythm and musicality on top of it - and your movements are coupled to your understanding of those.
That's quite deep, I guess at high level boxing you get similar concepts without the music element (ideas of tempo and upsetting people's tempo).
I think my biggest value I took away from dancing was learning a new energy to take to sports. Whatever you do in dancing, it needs to look smooth and soft - that is the name of the game. But there is a stiffness and explosiveness I take to most my sports and learning to apply softness has been valuable. After all most of the greatest all time athletes have an easiness about their techniques which I guess correlates to efficiency.
I think I agree with your overall point on your post - if you sleep on any activity you won't get much value from it, the corollary being that if you go deep on something you will find lots of value in it. I guess my specific reply to you was "don't sleep on dancing"
And it’s really valuable to me as a software engineer - at the very least it forces me out of my chair at 6.30pm 5 days a week to go to the studio, when otherwise I could easily find myself working 12-14 hours days because I am “in the zone” (which is easy for me to do because of the years of martial arts and meditation practice) which for sure would not be good for my health.
It is also a great emotional outlet for me as most of my day I am dealing with machines and logic.
And the best part is that I dance with my other half - we spend a lot of time together, travel together and get all our arguments done on the dance floor and not at home! :)
I definitely recommend dancing, any kind, to anyone and everyone.
Or if you're into hi-tech trance or frenchcore ;)
I personally had been looking for a place to practice a martial art to add to my yoga practice, but then covid hit and the city shut down. Hopefully after all this is over though.
Cuts both ways, I've been looking for oppurtunities to teach but people are so nervous and spinning now that it's mostly impossible to reach through.
Just asking because a lot of martial arts forms require remembering dozens or even hundreds of specific movements in a specific order.
Not personally, but I have a rough idea by now about who knows what out there.
This looks like a good start to me:
However one aspect that is missing in martial arts or yoga is musicality, i.e. in addition to synchronising with your own body and a partner you also need to synchronise to the music. This is one aspect that some of the aforementioned students struggled with, if they did not have previous other experience with music.
That means I'm golden with skateboarding as well; fantastic.
(as the lakers-magic scrimmage game is on in the background... thank goodness the nba is back at least)
Not saying no brain plasticity work takes place, but dance has an active emotional element, a tenderness, which i dont see sports really fulfilling.
This is very dance specific (almost anything you can say about dancing will be - since different dances can be as different from each other as curling is from powerlifting).
I've been dancing Argentine tango for many years (have also taught it) and, for me, it's very focused and very "in the head" activity. No one could tell from outside, though.
Nice to hear that tango helped your back, although I'm a bit surprised as I've found that I need a some back exercise to relieve the stiffness that I get from dancing (although this happens only when dancing for multiple hours a day for several days, as you do on festivals).
How do you feel about the difference between dancing to have fun and dancing to preform or teach? How big is that difference would you say?
For some background - tango is an improvisational partner dance (no choreography), danced together with other couples on the floor (it can get very crowded). One person - usually the man - leads, the other person - usually the woman - follows (I'm a leader).
Teaching is pretty different from just dancing for fun. Not so much in that there is less thinking but because I think of different things. When dancing for fun, I mostly think about:
1) The music and how to interpret it by leading certain steps or moves and by varying the speed and the energy of our dancing.
2) The position of my partner - her orientation and offset in relation to me, which leg does she currently have her weight on, the amount of momentum in her movement, etc.
3) The emotion of my partner - does the embrace feel comfortable to her, is she barely keeping up with the steps, is she in the mood for something more technically demanding or does she seem happy dancing simple musically appropriate stuff in a snugly embrace.
4) The situation on the dance floor - how crowded it is, is there any available space that I can move into, where is my back turned to, so that I can see what's going on around me and protect my partner from rubbing against other dancers (these two are sometimes in opposition, so you often need to do a lot of turns).
There is no talking during the dance - all of this is felt through the embrace.
When teaching, the focus shifts:
1) I need to consciously think and verbalize my own movement in much more detail, as that part is somewhat automatic when I dance socially but needs to be explained now.
2) There is much more focus on what my partner did wrong, instead of seamlessly adjusting the dance to her "mistakes".
3) I don't put that much focus on interpreting the music creatively, but instead try to bring the concept I'm currently teaching into the dance in several different ways.
As for performances, I barely did any (only demonstration dances after the class, and absolutely no competition performances) so I can only say that, due to all eyes being on me and my partner, the thinking intensifies :) But ideally it wouldn't, except for purposefully putting the lesson material into the dance - it is a demonstration after all.
I also want to point out that tango is very personal and other people might not approach it in as analytical fashion. Especially the followers - some of this stuff does not apply to them at all and their focus is elsewhere.
And entirely ungrounded.
Since I've moved to the countryside; boring endless gentle hills, breathtakingly stunning scenery that offers no challenges, and my brain basically goes into autopilot. I get to work feeling physically fulfilled but mentally drained.
I know what you mean, also when you talk about that certain tenderness, I have experienced that, and I can get that same thing out of sports like climbing/bmx/snowboarding. Take climbing: slowly reaching for a difficult hold you've never touched before, where you carefully lay your fingers on it, just touching it at first to make sure it'll actually hold you - and if not a fall an injury is certainly in there - while the rest of your body is at one wth the rock. That's basically the same for me. Or take snowboarding, just surfing a gentle slope, all alone while a snow shower slowly becomes heavier. There's no real goal there, focus fades, it's just you going with the flow. And getting that trance-like feeling really only works if you let go of certain natural fears.
Sadly, the feeling can be fickle mistress and hard to tap into.
Having studied a little modern dance, being a sw dev and bicycler, lifelong musician, and a pilates fanatic -- dance absolutely has more for the brain/body/emotional/spiritual connection. It's kind of the whole deal and it is unique this way.
"...Pele had scored an unbelievable six goals while in a kind of trance-like state..."
Pele often played in trance-like state, feeling he can get through his opponents.
Soccer for instance, demands continuous concentration and is as taxing mentally as it is physically, esp. in certain positions. This seems to be similarly true with sports like hockey, basketball, tennis, etc. Not sure how much of it applies to stop-start sports like baseball, cricket and american football.
Climbing requires deliberate control over muscles, breathing, coordination and concentration, in manner that I haven't seen in any physical activity.
That being said, looking at some of the dancers I know, dancing can be incredibly physically taxing on its own.
The dance they describe isn't just physical movement, it's also staying within a group movement which requires both reading where "the group" is and giving space to individual differences.
Obviously the focus here is on exercise but I would be curious if a less physically demanding but similarly grouped activity would have similar effects on brain function. I suspect that linking physicality and social coordination is key. We are both brains and bodies and neglecting either is unhealthy in the long term.
But trying to learn a dance move or take someone else’s choreography heavy exercise class was like trying to understand a second language when you are first learning it. I had to translate it to my “native language” and it took much longer for it to click even when I could physically do it.
It was more mentally taxing than studying for any test or anything I had to do as a developer.
I had a “bank” of 32 and 64 count combinations that I could just throw together on the fly and teaching a class became like driving. Once I memorized them and trained my body how to do them (my cp affects my left foot slightly and my left hand a lot) it was easy.
The other part is that I naturally have no rhythm. I could only teach to songs with heavy, consistent beats. You can buy premixed 32 count music but I ended up mixing my own using a program called Audacity that Adobe bought and turned into Audition.
Even then the only way I could mix music is by turning off the sound once I got near the mix point and mixing based on the waveforms.
I believe activating a relatively new pathways is vastly different to activating a relatively old one in terms of brain plasticity; which is why I don't think there is much promise with this particular game.
Edit: when I say new and old pathway I really mean one that has been activated relatively little versus one that has been activated considerably more.
There’s probably more variation with dancing (in general) than some dance games but I do want to say, it’s possible to fall into a rut within dancing.
Even for seasoned dancers there is a lot to offer in all of those. In partner dance you have to watch and adapt to your partner all the time (no matter the skill level). In choreography you of course have to learn new programs and execute them well (displaying the desired artistic expression), in improvisation you have to come up with things on the fly.
Unless you get stuck in an old routine (same old choreography, not doing anything new, etc.), there is almost endless variation and learning of new tricks and nuances.
This aligns much better with my view that creating and accessing relatively new/rarely used pathways is the mechanism that keeps our brains agile.
Almost all physically repetitive exercises combine sensory and cognitive tasks to varying extents.
I would also argue that learning and implementing new movements is a much more diverse task cognitively than getting better at beatsabre.
I seem to recall some of the best custom mappers are specifically into dancing/choreography, but don't quote me on this; I don't know how to validate this information (maybe someone from the community will read this and be able to confirm).
Also when the study says dance they mean learning a new dance. If you were to do variations of the same dance over and over this study doesn't prove you would also get the benefits. I'd imagine if we did study it that case would show results very similar to the benefits from repetitive activity.
I played ping pong on VR the other day, and it was amazing! I've played a bunch of ping pong in real life, and the physics in VR - along with the feedback in the controller - felt almost exactly life-like. It was truly a mind-blowing experience. It made me realize though that we're really at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what kinds of things we could do with VR. Up until now, the games we could play had the limit of only taking a few key presses and mouse motion as input. Suddenly we're now afforded the entire realm of physical motion. Not to hype it up too much, but the possibilities feel practically endless.
I don't understand the comments that say the games are repetitive. In my experience most dance is repetitive. You practice certain moves and then that's it. Repeat those moves.
It would not surprise me if the dance group did better than the fitness training simply because the dance members enjoyed dancing more than the fitness members enjoyed fitness training, through I might be biased as I am not one who enjoy fitness training at all.
That doesn't mean traditions and beliefs are necessarily true, but they didn't evolve randomly either. Successful memes serve a purpose, and that can be rational outside of cultural rationality.
Dance seems similar. It's something most cultures do... especially when they're being especially cultural. It may even go deeper. Dancing and music are kind of wired into us, possibly adjacent to speech. Babies will dance to music.
I wouldn't be surprised if science confirms that dance is good.
> That doesn't mean traditions and beliefs are necessarily true, but they didn't evolve randomly either. Successful memes serve a purpose, and that can be rational outside of cultural rationality.
The belief that no knowledge exists outside of the scientific establishment is one of the biggest weaknesses of the center-left technocratic memeplex (of which I'm proudly a part). It leads not only to the myopia of believing that your opponents don't deserve a hearing because they're "anti-science" (for ever more creative interpretations of science..), but also to unforced errors from the ability to reason about uncertainty, like <everything our public health authorities have done during the pandemic>.
I believe that the scientific method is the greatest engine for rapid, high-quality knowledge generation in human history, and consider its manifestation in the scientific establishment to be one of the crowning achievements of humanity. But this doesn't make its manifestation perfect: as with all human systems, it's composed of people who are not immune to pettiness, narrow-minded, selfishness, and even occasionally stupidity. And as with all institutions, the human flaws of its constituents are magnified 1000-fold due to the challenges of incentive design and modeling large systems. Please note, this is decidedly _not_ a criticism of scientists beyond "they're human"; I wouldn't be surprised if the average scientist was well below the median for all of the negative qualities I described. It's just an acknowledgement that they're human, they have flaws, and those flaws affect how science is produced.
Proper science is vastly superior in efficiency and confidence to many other forms of epistemology, but the imperfection of the scientific establishment means that it occasionally mishandles or abdicates responsibility for certain whole sections of knowledge-space. In these situations, reasoning under uncertainty requires cautiously looking at other sources of knowledge; they may be "lower-quality" in many ways than the scientific method, but they're better than simply assuming that absence of evidence = evidence of absence.
When I was younger, I had this insight in the context of ayahuasca rituals while in Peru (I had the insight _before_ the ritual, to be clear haha). The scientific community had abdicated its responsibility to study the potential of psychedelics for improving mental health; how else to interpret shaman guiding an ayahuasca ritual than as an analogue of a therapist[1] trained in psychedelic therapy, whose expertise is shaped not through RCTs but centuries of trial and error? The fact that the West is taking slow, halting steps towards studying psychedelic therapy 70 years after its popularization here is pretty damning, IMO: as somebody who treated science as a valuable but flawed source of knowledge, I've been a happy user of LSD for years, and consider it an immensely helpful tool for mental health.
There are a million examples of this if you stop and think about it. Fifty years ago, yoga and meditation made you a kook; the scientific establishment started studying it and now, it's weird among some circles not to regularly do yoga and meditate. This is again something you can learn easily through examining "unscientific" tradition + self-experimentation, with an appropriate model of the downside risks.
[1] I'm using intentionally clinical language here to make the comparison clear, though I'm aware that it's a little reductive to ignore the spiritual dimension most shamans would describe their work as having.
[1] The reason I don't focus too much on this aspect is because I've already found it productive to model politics and policy as a natural disasters, or millions of monkeys banging on typewriters: I don't think most humans are capable of what I'd consider critical thinking, and they're certainly not capable of exercising it in large, complex systems. I get that this is a little nihilistic, but in practice it just means being selective about how you choose to spend your time with and not getting too drawn into cases where you can't control it, like politics.
Mind the n = 38. People already taking the title at face value in this thread.
Maybe the frequency of these things can be explained by the 80/20 rule, ha.
I even figured in my early 20s it was one of those things where I had to just keep trying more until I found the right style, but I took adult classes in swing, ballroom, disco, various fitness dance and modern dance and just universally hated it all. I am amazed and wowed by watching professional dancers, but I find the act of doing any kind of dancing for myself is just a deeply mentally disinteresting, grating, boring slog that I can’t get into.
The mentally taxing part comes from the complex weight shifting and footwork that is constantly needed, complex combos require sophisticated manipulations of body weight positioning and constant shifting of stances and physical location around the bag.
It is the only cardio-like activity I can stand, except it is way above the cardio zone, HR when active is above 150 (or even 160) and stays there for an entire 3 minute round.
People see a barbell and they think bodybuilding, but there's a minority of weightlifting that involves a degree of complexity that's qualitatively in a different league than, say, bicep curls. I'm curious how it pans out.
I don't know enough about the underlying science to really understand the paper at a glance, but it's not surprising that learning a new skill provides beneficial effects. A neat follow up would be to look at what learning a musical instrument with a lower physical fitness requirement than dance does is relationship to a dance routine. Or even something like birding, that requires a moderate amount of walking with increased skills observing the physical environment.
I think this probably (with low confidence, because of the low N and a high dropout rate) answers the question "is dance better for neuroplasticity than walking on a treadmill and stationary bike + repetitive and uncoordinated floor exercises" with a yes, but I'll bet plenty of other activities surpass the repetitive control group as well.
I'm sure specific-style of dancing also produces plenty of such feelings but the structure/grammer must impose some additional restrictions too. Though it might be a different sort of pleasure to invent something new and see that work well within that framework.
Maybe I just have zero natural dance aptitude but ...
I've taken maybe 8 swing dance lessons and 12 salsa lessons and I found them extremely hard and worst part is I felt horrible being so bad at it because it's not fun for the other more skilled students to dance with an unskilled noob. It's that last part that's the most frustrating. One salsa instructor said to expect at least 18 months of lessons before being able to lead. That was before seeing how bad I was at it. Another salsa instructor pretty much just gave up. She didn't want to deal with noobs.
I can jump around to the music at a rave all night. I'm sure I could learn video game dance (DDR or Just Dance) but getting past the point of being a disappointment in two person dance seems really difficult for some reason.
I expect that advanced gymnastics is superior to dance with respect to brain plasticity, but only if the practitioner has already reached a level of adaption sufficient for the training stimulus to be in the hormetic zone. This hypothesis may or may not be correct, but it's certainly testable. If true, one would expect that a competent gymnast would be able to perform as a slightly less competent dancer whereas a competent dancer would have difficulty holding a planche or working a pommel horse.
1. I dance leading part, and I found myself more self-confident in my engineering leader and manager work. Giving team a direction became more organic and easy. I actually had to start restraining myself to motivate people's creativity. It is actually kind of dance move too: stand still and give my follower firm support to decorate her part with small movements with music.
2. One of my fellow partners is playing intellectual games (local franchise of "Jeopardy!" and several others). She says her performance degrades with her progress in tango, because the follower's part in tango is to listen and not to step by her own, but only when and where the leader leads.
I also believe in neuroplasticity and overall positive impact of creating and cohesion of neural links.
Because, in my opinion, dance is a sorta-kinda-like strength endurance training when you exert a modest loaded movement (say, 40%-50% of your bench press' 1RM) for 2-4 repetition and there are tens of these bouts.
In calories spent such resistance exercise may match some endurance exercise but other effects can be dramatically different.
Including, but not limited to, levels and utilization of brain-derived neurotophic factor. While endurance training increase BDNF level long term and modestly, the resistance exercise can effect a sharp 60%-90% increase at the end of training session, then drop to 40% of normal (to the person) level and slow recovery. This indicates overproduction of BDNF and its complete utilization of the body to build neurons everywhere.
All that said... i'm not surprised it has a lot of leverage in our brain.
The class included "floor work" similar but no limited to [1].
It was hard. I received a lot of feed back from the instructor, but of course I didn't achieve that amount of grace.
Very worth trying if you want to experience learning something new and challenging.
Incidentally, this is one area where there are many more females than males. 2¢.
Her memory has definitely gone downhill since she moved there, which could just be age. But I also feel like the physical activity and social aspect of always going out to dance helped keep her going longer than she otherwise would have.
Hard to say I guess.
Try the Jerusamela on for size. Warning: make sure the vase, and precious items in the living room are packed away before you practise.
Some attempts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePuGjRRin3c
Official video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCZVL_8D048
edit: my feed is filled with people with goth make up mimicking lyrics or movie dialogues, skate boarding tricks, contemporary dancers and weird jokers.
https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Together-Time-Dance-History/d...
Super-tiny summary: humans have used coordinated rhythmic movement and the feelings it evokes as an aid to build communities and create efficient synchronized behavior. This behavior may even predated the human separation from other apes, and there is some evidence that certain other modern apes may use this too, though to a more limited degree.
If this is truly such an ancient mechanism (the author's case is not ironclad, but good), it wouldn't be surprising to find connections between "coordinated rhythmic movement" and brain function.
When looking at studies, there are two types of validity to pay attention to, "external" and "internal." Internal is the sort that says: does this study actually test what it claims to? If a study looks in a black box, sees there's no elephant inside, and says "there's no elephant in there! Huzzah, we've proven it's a tiger!", that's an internally invalid study. External validity is about applicability: if I give a dose of abx to a bunch of people with advanced AIDS to treat an infection, and find it doesn't work, it doesn't mean "this abx doesn't work." It means "this abx doesn't work /in this population/. Don't extrapolate it to an immune-competent population."
1. The study begins with what they describe in their registration documents as "healthy elderly." That's a bit kind: "Sixty-two normal volunteers, who responded to a local advertisement, were screened. Subjects with any neurological condition, metallic implants, claustrophobia, tinnitus, BMI ≤30, high blood pressure (systolic≤140 mmHg), diabetes mellitus, intensive physical engagement (more than 1 hour/week) and abnormal performance in a cognitive screening test (MMSE < 27)[32] and a test devoted to depressive symptoms (BDI-II > 13) [33] were excluded." In short, they started with an anomalously healthy population, who likely have a lifetime of exposure to exercise and physical activity. Do the results here extrapolate to the general population? Do they extrapolate to the same degree? It's a decent question mark, considering their results are non-significant in everything except their "looks like false positives" brain volume measures to begin with - even a little bit of "ehh... maybe not so much" takes them into the realm of "no effects", alongside every other measure in the paper. External validity is doubtful here.
2. Internal validity is a bit doubtful too, first for reasons of selection bias. They recruited 62 healthy volunteers; they had 14 dropouts. A 22% dropout rate isn't atrocious, but it's more than enough - if it's not random - to skew a study. Their enrollment figure describes the dropouts as almost entirely pre-randomisation (10/14), but the study description notes that 6 drop-outs were due to failure to achieve frequency of adherence, which clearly had to occur post-randomization, and 2 due to dissatisfaction with group assignment (obviously post-randomization). 6 got seriously ill - I'd love to know in which group, and with what.
3. Their way of controlling for equivalent physical load was to measure heart rate twice. On the one hand, not crazy. On the other hand, if you've ever seen your HR during a workout session, you'll see how noisy that is - and with a sample of a whole 38 pairs, that's a relatively huge amount of noise. Moreover, it doesn't appear that they used that to guide intensity of intervention, just "to control" (which I take to mean, to plug into a multivariate model at some point - except they don't, as they describe the covariates they plug into their model to be age, sex, and intracranial volume for brain volume t-tests) I'm skeptical this is an adequate control - I'd at least have wanted a time-weighted average HR.
3.b. The sports intervention had one effort-controllable component (sport bike), but had 3 different components. It's not at all clear they could capture the effort under the regimen above, especially as the relatively light strength exercise that the elderly tend to tolerate is the place where I'm most suspicious of them failing to capture an effort delta.
4. The differences in brain volume swung in different directions in each group, without making an awful lot of sense (more right cerebellar development in standard exercise group?? So, asymmetrically, the less-coordination-demanding intervention showed more development of the primary coordination center of the brain?). But more generally, looking at supplementary table S3, note that dancing showed improvements in anterior and posterior white matter, and standard exercise in temporal and occipital. The brain isn't that cleanly delineated - to find such statistically strong effects in such broad brushstrokes sets off a red flag for me.
The fact that there was scattered growth *in both groups suggests we're looking at false positives. Not precisely a new problem for this study methodology. Their p-threshold of .001 is considered best-practices (aka, the bare minimum) for cluster-based adjustment of multiple testing in neuroimaging: so that's good. They don't report the p-values on their brain volume testing; table S3 simply notes "p<.001". An actual effect size would be better, but hard to get with cluster-based thresholds - they're sensitive to "any signal, at all, is it there?" but they're shitty at locking down precise volumes.
5. Dance group had lower BDNF plasma at baseline vs. standard exercise (1500 vs. 2100) (p .14), and equal at post (2200 to 2100, p .6). In short, they showed regression to the mean in the dance group. They report this as "the dance group had an increase in plasma BDNF from baseline." Serum levels likewise were not significantly difference pre and post between the two groups (dance went from 35K to 36K, sport went from 30K to 29K). In short, nothing happened. But they hid the "fucking nothing happened" in supplementary table 4, and dressed it up real pretty in the included figure 4.
6. Cognitive outcomes, the only thing that actually matters here: no differences.
7. At least some physical fitness differences? No, none there either.
TL;DR they found nothing, made some misleading figures out of it. There are no perfect studies, but this one just boils down to "found nothing, needed publication."
At the same time one can quote Feynman on social sciences or link to the relevant xkcd. Independent minds ...