A BRIEF PRIMER ON

A Systems Approach to
Health and Performance
W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD
INTRODUCTION

At ALTIS, we have this monthly Program called the

Apprentice Coach Program (ACP), where therapists,
coaches, and others from all over the world come and
spend a week with us.

Two things that almost always come up are questions about our thoughts
on ‘movement screens’ and ‘mental toughness’.

Upon further questioning, what our visitors are really trying to find out
is what kind of screening do we do, and how can we ensure that the
athletes we work with don’t choke when it comes to more important
competitions.
Well, without getting into the compare to lower velocity sprint
weeds too much, the answers to training while solo? How does it
these questions converge compare to the execution of drills?
somewhat. We have all seen great ‘drillers’,
who can barely put one foot in
We always begin by starting at the front of another when asked to
end - in our case, a high-pressure transfer this skill-set to actual fast
race - and trying to identify what is sprinting, for example!
happening there first, and then
work backwards. If an athlete We cannot begin to understand
‘chokes’ what does this actually why an athlete is ‘choking’ until we
look like? What does this really know the answers to these
mean? Has their technical model questions. Similarly, we cannot
changed? Ninety percent of the begin to understand what a
time, it has. So what does that movement screen means until we
mean? Just because their technical appreciate how these technical
model has changed in an changes are manifest.
environment of higher arousal,
does that mean that the athlete has If an athlete runs technically
‘choked’? excellent in low pressure training,
but falls apart during a high
Even if the athlete doesn’t choke, pressure race, what is that telling
how does technique during a high- us? Is that a technical issue? A
pressure race compare to that of a psychological issue? A mechanical
low-pressure race? How does it issue, whereby there is some
compare to the technique during musculoskeletal ‘dysfunction’ that
high velocity sprint training with only reveals itself under states of
training partners? How does it higher arousal?

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

3
How can we tell the difference?

These are the questions that we constantly ask, and why we find
this field to be so interesting in the first place. In our opinion, we
far too often rely on 4th or 5th generation movement screens to
tell us about how an athlete moves. We also far too often separate
psychological and technical processes, and don’t appreciate the
relationship between them.

Don’t get us wrong - we are not saying to stop doing your FMS - or
whatever other screen you take your athlete population through;
for you, the information gleaned through this process may well
guide your training and therapy process, and you are very
successful doing it that way. But to truly understand the chaos
that is human movement, we must appreciate the role that the
contextual, complex, ever-changing environment in which it
exists plays in it.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

4
Rather than blaming an athlete for ‘choking’, ask - what other
contributing factors are at play here? Rather than the relative
controlled environment of the typical movement screen,
shouldn’t we better appreciate the ‘outcome’ movement? i.e. the
ultimate manifestation of the athlete problem-solving process -
the chaotic sporting movement itself - in context?

And if we should, what does this even look like?

The way in which we answer these questions is through a

‘systems-approach’, and this forms the key to the ALTIS
Performance Therapy Methodology. The following eBook will
give a very brief primer of what systems thinking means, and
how we can apply it to our current training environments.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

5
CLOCKS AND CLOUDS

Karl Popper, in a speech given in April 1965 presented a

metaphor he called ‘clocks and clouds’ to describe the
two ends of the spectrum of predictability in social
science. Clocks are neat, orderly systems that can be
solved through reduction; while clouds are,

“highly irregular, disorderly, and more

or less unpredictable.”

The mistake we often make is to pretend that everything is a clock.

Reducing things down to their component parts, analyzing them, and

then applying linear cause and effect relationships to their interactions
is how we go about fixing a clock. Clocks are complicated systems that
can be broken apart, and put back together, over and over again.

In essence - they are predictable.

We get into trouble when we assume that we can use similar strategies to
manage clouds: we reduce them down, apply our linear cause and effect
relationships to things, and … then what?

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

6
Generally, we either live with the ‘solution’, burying our
head in the sand to its incompleteness, or we attach some
post hoc explanation as to why our relatively reductionist
strategy didn’t work out.

Rather, by thinking in systems, we allow for the possibility

that many things are clouds, and we treat them as such.

Systems, in general, are representative of many

interrelated or interacting elements. In the world of sport
performance, these elements may represent an athlete's
physiology, histology, anatomy, psychology, or
neuromuscular function - to name just a few.

The original intention of the biomedical model was to

reduce a problem (or dysfunction) into its constituent parts
(ultimately dealing with a single pathological factor), in the
assumption that we can re-aggregate this understanding of
the parts into greater understanding of the whole.

But it has become clear that this method has failed to

provide the infrastructure needed to comprehend the many
pathways related to the big problems in sport performance.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

7
WHAT IS SYSTEMS-THINKING?

Systems-thinking is a set of practices based on the belief

that the component parts of a system are best
understood in the context of relationships with each
other and with other systems - rather than in isolation.

Systems-thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect

relationships. In this vein, systems-thinking can serve as a diagnostic
tool that will allow us to propose better questions to big problems. It
moves us away from the linearity of traditional analyses, and instead
attempts to uncover how behaviors emerge over time and circumstance.

For example, trying to comprehend the underlying cause of an aberrant

movement is impossible through solely investigating fundamental
elements in isolation.

8
Systems-thinking moves us away from a
reductionist attempt to isolate single
structures that may correlate with
dysfunctional movement, and instead
towards understanding the processes that
are at play when this dysfunction arises.

With a systems-approach, we need to

respect the individual elements within the
system, but also - and more importantly -
the interactions of these elements, and the
whole systems within which they exist.

For example, it has been argued that ankle

flexion ability is an important function for
the health and performance of athletes. It
has been theorized that if an athlete is
restricted in their ability to fully flex the
ankle joint, it could negatively affect both
health and performance.

A reductionist approach to ankle flexion

range would generally begin with an
assessment of the ankle mortise joint. This
assessment would follow a hierarchical
approach to determine whether there is
sufficient ankle flexion ability. If there is
not, then we would then recommend
specific strategies to increase the range of
motion at the ankle joint.

9
1. A systems approach begins with asking if the assumption is
valid the first place.

2. Secondly, it strives to evaluate the complete network of joint

complexes - as they will also influence the mechanics of the
ankle. The joints below and above the ankle joint affect the
function of the ankle; it does not exist as a sole point in time
and space, operating in isolation.

3. Thirdly, we must assess what other systems are at play, as

well as the situation(s) where the perceived lack of flexion
ability shows up.

We must also judge whether this lack of flexion is actually a

compensatory strategy that is making up for a lack of
stability somewhere else within the system.

4. And finally, we must assess whether this perceived lack of

ankle flexion ability is simply the athlete’s typical (‘normal’)
range, and has been a positive functioning element within
her movement strategy for as long as she has been moving.
Any input at this particular level of the system will no doubt
have a deleterious effect (at least initially) to the overall
movement function.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

10
 This systems approach ultimately looks to
be as holistic as possible.

Moving away from reductive, more analytical thinking affords us the

opportunity to understand the underpinnings of a dysfunction.
Through connecting integrated systems and leveraging the
relationships of these systems, we can formulate better questions rather
than merely pigeonholing a prefabricated (and often biased) solution to
our assessment.
REDUCTIONISM VS. HOLISM

The classical inception of reductionist science espouses

that all events and processes are governed by just a few
properties; that everything that is, “is physical, and
every event, phenomena or process is caused by some
low-level physical interaction” (Putnam, 1958).

This hierarchy has been conveyed as a pyramid, where the bottom level is
fundamental physics, and that laws at this level can explain all levels
above it, including chemistry, biology, economics, and other social
sciences.

This viewpoint tends to relegate everyday human experience to some

sort of peripheral activity, and has thus been subject to much critique
over the years, and beginning in the 1930s, scientists began to explore
different methods of thinking about things, and a more holistic view
(harkening back to the Gothean Science of a century earlier) began to
gain greater appreciation.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

12
For example, compare the above view of the reductionist sciences
with that of Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who wrote
in General System Theory, in 1955:

“Modern science is characterized by its

increasing specialization, necessitated by
the enormous amount of data, the
complexity of techniques, and of theoretical
structures within every field. This,
however, has led to a breakdown of science
as an integrated realm: the physicist, the
biologist, the psychologist, and the social
scientist, are, so to speak, encapsulated in a
private universe, and it is difficult to get
word from one cocoon to the other.”

von Bertalanffy was one of the first to describe Systems Theories -

precursors to complex theories. General Systems theorists - like
the Complex Systems Theorists to come - argued that holistic,
biological models are more appropriate models for thinking about
systems than mechanistic, reductionist models, and this type of
systems-thinking began to be appropriated in theories of
automation, information, feedback control, open systems, decision-
making, games, learning, and many other subjects.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

13
More contemporary studies of complexity — chaos theories, networks,
adaptive systems, dynamical systems theory, etc. - can be seen as a
‘renaissance’ of this post-War project.

Before we move on, let’s just ensure we understand what a system is to

begin with. While there are multiple definitions, most of them include
the elements outlined below:

A system is a group of interconnected elements working together to

achieve a common purpose or function.

According to von Bertalanffy, in order for us to consider something a

system, it must have three things:

1. Elements: the individual parts of the system

Interconnections and interdependence must exist

2. among the elements

Purpose or function: The objectives of the organization as a

3. whole have a higher priority than the objectives of its
subsystem

If even one of those items is missing, we don’t

have a system.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

14
PART VS. WHOLE

The defining properties of any system are properties

which none of its parts has. A system is a whole -
consisting of parts; each of which can affect the behavior
or properties of the whole. For example, we are a
biological system - consisting of heart, lungs, stomach,
etc. Each part of our biological system is affected by all
the other parts of the system. But our system as a whole
cannot be divided into independent parts; the defining
properties of any system are properties which none of
its parts has.

For example (describing a famous example given by Systems Scientist

Russel Ackoff ), the essential property of a car is to transport you
somewhere. No single independent part of the car can do this. You can’t
take the seat out of the car, sit in it, and drive it to work. No single part of
the car can do that.

Similarly, if you cut out an eyeball, put it on the table and ask it to read,
how’s that going to work?

Your eyes don’t see. You see.

Your hand doesn’t write. You write.

Your brain doesn’t think. You think.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

15
W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD
When a system is taken apart, it loses its essential properties.

A system is not the sum of the behavior of its parts, it is a product of its
interactions - how the parts fit.

Professor Ackoff builds upon this metaphor, imagining building an

automobile from a bunch of component parts:

How many different cars are there in the United States?

Last estimates showed that there were about 237.

If we asked 200 car engineers to vote on the best engine of these 237
different cars, they may, for example say the Porsche 911 GT3 RS.

So let’s take that engine out, and put it in the factory.

If we asked the engineers to vote on the best transmission, they may say
it's from the Toyota Camry. So we take that transmission, place it on the
factory floor besides the Porsche engine, and work our way down through
every single individual part that is required to build a car.

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

17
At the end of this process, we now - theoretically - have the perfect car.
We have all the best individual components of all the cars on the road.

So we ask the car engineers to take these components and build our
perfect car, and what happens?

They can’t even begin.

For the simple reason that none of the pieces fit!

The performance of a system depends upon how the parts fit - not how
they react when taken separately!

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

CLOSING

Systems-thinking, at its root, was a

reaction to the view that we cannot
understand the nature of a system
through analytic methods alone;
that to fully understand how a
thing works, we must appreciate
the system in which it exists.

In all sports, athletes are bound by a system -

the interaction of - and the characteristics of
- the athlete, the environment, and the task.
Rather than separating the athlete from the
context, we need to keep them all together -
studying the athlete in context - i.e. the end-
state. In order for us to do this effectively, we
must think critically, identify and appreciate
the big problems, and work creatively
together to manage them.

This begins with thinking in systems.

This is obviously a very brief overview, and there is far more to thinking
in systems that needs to be taken into account, and how to apply them to
our practice. While it is gaining traction in the sport performance
world, it is clear that it is increasingly becoming appreciated in today’s
society as a whole.

It is no surprise to us that, in a new World Economic Forum report - The

Future of Jobs, looking at the employment, skills and workforce strategy
for the future - ranked critical thinking, creativity, and complex
problems solving as the top three skills that will shape our future. A
systems-approach to thinking about our problems will not only help you
in your coaching and-or therapy practice, but also in life!

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD

20
 Performance Therapy Course
COMING SOON
z
The ALTIS Performance Therapy Course will educate elite
performance coaches and medical practitioners alike through
an interactive digital course that can be accessed any time, any
where, and on any device.

Course Offerings:

ALTIS AGORA Council Facebook group

Knowledge from the leading practitioners, coaches, &
therapists
Hours of exclusive video content
Learning checkpoint quizzes
Interactive guided learning material
ALTIS Certificate of Completion

Follow along for updates

W W W.ALT I S .W ORLD •   @ ALT I S •   #C ARRY T HES HI ELD