The Evolutionary Foundation of Naturalness
Baked "naturals"?
The word “natural” is probably one of the most evident, yet most misunderstood and confusing words. What is natural is always popular and will always draw the attention and interest of anyone in search for authenticity and health.
Many products today are labeled as “natural” even where they’re not, simply to increase their attraction to buyers, including food products, cosmetics*, vacation packages, and fitness methods. Such a fallacy can be found everywhere in some form or another.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a famous geneticist, once stated that…
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” ~Theodosius Dobzhansky
Human movement aptitudes, just like nutritional and other physical needs, are part of our species-specific biology; this is the outcome of evolution. So if we want a fitness program that would be biologically relevant, we need to look into our universal movement past. This is why the primary principle qualifying MovNat as a natural physical activity is that the movement aptitudes we practice are “evolutionarily natural,” i.e., the natural outcome of evolution. Because if they are not evolutionary, are they truly natural?
‘Something with no relevance in regard to evolution is very likely to be of no relevance in regard to naturalness.’
Fitness concepts or physical activities that stem from theories, traditions, conventions, or personal creativity (but not from millions of years of human natural activity in the wild) are not the outcome of evolution but the outcome of theories, traditions, conventions, or personal creativity.
You must be able to trace the origin of the movement aptitudes practiced in our most ancient, universal past – not 1000 years, and not even 10,000 years ago, but 100,000 or millions of years ago. If you cannot trace the origin, then what you are presented with does not qualify as natural. Does that mean it has no value? Of course not. But it does mean that it is only “natural” because you’ve been led to believe it is, despite the absence of an objective criteria.
Based on what criteria?
In a nutshell,
‘there are thousands of fitness programs and dozens of traditional physical disciplines out there, but only one original, evolutionarily natural human movement mode.’
… and it is to move naturally: walking, running, jumping, crawling, climbing, carrying, throwing, and so forth. If we were to invite a group of hunter-gatherers to visit a typical gym, they likely would be bewildered or even amused by the contrived patterns, routines, protocols and other fitness rituals being practiced.
Moving naturally since the dawn of mankind
Moving Naturally is Timeless
Moving Naturally has been a fitness “fad” for several millions of years; it is timeless. A truly natural approach to fitness means taking an evolutionary approach to fitness.
This “evolutionary fitness” is practicing the full range of human evolutionary natural movement skills. Here, we mean physical activity based primarily on locomotive skills; secondly, on manipulative skills; and finally, on combative skills.
Of course, what we need is not a primitive approach to exercising, but instead, a thoughtful, effective, and scientifically valid fitness method involving all human evolutionary natural movement aptitudes.
There is within yourself an ancestral memory of movement that you can reawaken and that longs to be reawakened.
‘Come train with us and learn to master the ancient biotechnology that your body represents.’
Have you experienced a reawakening of an ancestral movement memory? If so, how do you practice it?
Erwan Le Corre
Founder of MovNat and Master Instructor
Copyright © 2012 MovNat
To stay informed about the upcoming release of the MovNat Book in 2013, subscribe to the True Nature Newsletter. Learn about MovNat Certification.
*the term natural is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
PDF 
Be sure to sign up for the MovNat® True Nature™ Newsletter: 
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This statement never really made sense to me. How does the study of life (biology) only make sense by looking at death (evolution). Would I learn more about a tiger by studying it in the wild or its bones? Basing a philosophy on a theory (evolution) that is really mathematically impossible is a mistake that creates a weak link and alienates a large segment of the earths population. Would not a body designed to move a certain way make those movement patterns even more “natural”. My car is designed to work within certain parameters if I use it outside of those parameters it will break down. Now, if I took my car and a couple of other parts and started to tinker and suddenly I came up with a machine that seemed to do something would that make that machine more or less “natural” at performing it’s function than the original car that was specifically designed for its function? I don’t think evolution is the deciding factor on what is natural, it is not because of evolution we run it is because we can run that we run. I do not say this because I disagree with the Movnat system, I just think this is a weakness (and an unnecessary one) in the philosophy which leaves it open to attack.
We appreciate you sharing your opinion, thank you. “Doubt is healthy. It tests one’s convictions.” ~From the movie Haunted
Scott, I agree with your comment to a degree but one thing that stood out to me in your comment “it is not because of evolution we run it is because we can we run” but that is kind of a ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg’ argument don’t you think. We can’t choose to run if we can’t run and also the choice to run would be a conscience decision and we did not have the level of conscience decision capabilities we have now a days. Somewhere down our evolutionary path we began to learn to run and if we didn’t know what running is (because we hadn’t done it yet) then it must have been a respond to a demand i.e. being chased by predators or chasing fast prey in other words an evolutionary adaption.
Take the Turtle for a reverse look at what im saying. It doesn’t choose to not run because it can, it simply can’t run and why not, because it took a different approach in evolution when it came to defense (it grew a shell instead of running away) and it doesn’t chase fast prey, most of its diet is vegetation there for it never learned to run and because it never learned it doesn’t have the choice to choose to run or not.
Somewhere down evolution are primitive selves were in a situation where running was a good adaption to make, a situation most likely forced upon us in one way or another.
But nothing can be put in stone, there is no documents from thousands of years ago that leaves most peoples opinions valid to various extents.
Sorry Gary I just can’t understand the logic of something “choosing” to grow a shell or learning to run after being chased. How did shelless turtles survive being eaten in the time it took them to evolve and if they had another means of survival why take the time and required effort to change? If you can’t survive you go extinct, it happens everyday. In the end I really don’t want to start an argument about whether evolution is true or not, I just wanted to say that I thought making it a prerequisite to eating or training a certain way was limiting and non-inclusive and that there are other theory’s such as intelligent design that fit just as well. If something is designed to run and it chooses not to it will not be living up to its full potential. As for that being a “conscience decision” I don’t imagine how a conscience evolves anymore than a shell.
Scott – I think your issue here is that you’re framing evolution as an adaptive choice. (“Why did the shell-less turtles take the time and effort to change.”) Evolution is not a “choice” in this respect because evolution happens to populations, not individuals, and is based on natural selection. Random variation ensures that individuals within a population have differences. Some of these differences are disadvantageous, some are neutral, and some provide an advantage. The process of natural selection means that those individuals with advantageous differences live long enough to reproduce. Over multiple generations, an advantageous mutation will show up in a greater percentage of the population.
So, nothing makes sense in biology except in light of evolution because all biological life has been shaped by the pressures of natural selection. It is impossible to offer a rational explanation of why turtles have shells or why humans can run without talking about how these traits were adaptive advantages for the turtle and human populations. To bring this back to MovNat – we run because our ancestors that moved faster lived long enough to pass their “running genes” (fast twitch muscle fiber genes, skeletal structure genes, etc.) along to us.
As an aside, the theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t come into conflict with evolution on this point. The ID theory actually incorporates evolution – so there is no “inclusivity” issue here.
I get what you are saying Rachel, i was responding to Gary’s use of evolution as an adaptive choice. I would not disagree with natural selection however this is rarely what people are talking about when they use the term evolution. Natural selection is a loss of genetic material (not a gaining of material) and requires someone to already have the ability to run to be the person who survives because running is advantageous. So to say nothing in biology makes sense except in terms of natural selection would be a more true statement perhaps?
I love the idea of training outside and training to survive rather than have big biceps. I have to agree with you Scott. I like “functional fitness” but am turned off by the evolutionary slant, and for that reason would never be affiliated with the movement. These days, it is not acceptable to question the theory of evolution, not based on the scientific possibility of it, but the movement’s a priori beliefs.
As one of evolution’s biggest biologists (Richard Lewontin) says, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Scott- Natural selection isn’t a loss OR gain of genetic material. It’s an alteration in genetic code over time where one version is better than the rest at keeping the organism tied to it alive long enough to reproduce.
Tom, it’s your right to throw the baby with the water, but does it really matter if you have different views on the origin of life? Is it the “why” we move a certain way that matters the most, or actually the “what” (movement patterns and drills) and the “how” (techniques, skills, programming)? Would it be more acceptable if we had used the word “ancestral” instead or “evolutionary”? Because in the end, that we believe in evolution or creation, we all share the same, universal biomechanics and biological needs, isn’t it? We have plenty of people who don’t believe in the concept of evolution and who train with us, because what truly matters to them is the benefits of the MovNat practice in their lives. I guess they are simply secure with what they truly believe in, isn’t it what matters? We all choose our battles I guess. Ours is to provide people with a physical education and fitness system for physical performance based on natural human movement abilities. It is about practical performance for all, and practical solutions for health and fitness for all, not about imposing a particular explanation of the world. Thanks for your input and be well.