The Reformer Is Not a Piece of Fitness Equipment

Depending on who you ask, Reformer Pilates should be:

• Classical.

• Contemporary.

• Athletic.

• Functional.

• Strength-based.

• Clinical.

• Dynamic.

Seems everyone has an opinion.

I am not interested in joining that argument.  Not because I think all approaches are equal but because I think the argument misses the most important question.

The question is not:

“What is Pilates?”

The question is:

“What problem are we trying to solve, and for whom?”

For me, the answer has always been simple.

I want people to become stronger.  I want them to become more mobile.  I want them to become more skillful.

And I want those qualities to persist as they age.

Everything else is secondary.

Because strength, mobility and skill do not always coexist comfortably, this creates an interesting challenge.

 

Increasing load costs range of motion.

Increasing range of motion costs load.

Increasing complexity costs load.

Any of these applied at a group level are exponentially harder than 1:1 (separate conversation) except being effective at a group level allows us to have greater impact and develop more compelling business models.

The art of movement programming is finding ways to develop all three without sacrificing one for another.

This is where I think the Reformer becomes interesting.

Some argue the Reformer is a resistance machine - like a cable machine or weights - others think of it as an instability device. Some see it primarily as a rehabilitation tool.

All of these descriptions are incomplete.