Yoga teacher told someone not to drink in the class

My very first yoga class was small, maybe 6 or 8, and it was the first time for everyone in the class.Toward the end of class, the teacher asked if anyone felt kind of queasy during the class, said that wasn’t uncommon, and explained that many people say not to eat or drink for 2 hours before and 1 hour after class. She suggested that we try that for the first few classes, then decide whether that was important to us or not.

I’m really surprised at you all’s comments, The studio I attend actively encourages water, particularly during hot classes (ours are generally 95 degrees). In fact, they almost always tell us at the end of a long flow sequence to take child’s pose, rest in down dog, or take a moment to towel off and have a drink if needed. It’s a standard joke that it’s not a class til someone has kicked a water bottle over.

I take a quart of water in, and generally drink about half of it during and between the back to back hot classes I take, finishing the rest off on the walk home.

And I often eat a light snack on the walk to the studio. I don’t like to go in to a class hungry and unfocused.

I didn’t even know that not taking a drink was a thing, and I’ve practiced in many studios, some long term, some as visitor.

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

lauragreenbaum wrote: »

If it's a yoga thing, fine, but I think it was unnecessary to call her out in front of the class. She could have waited til after the class and explained it.

I disagree. That's like saying if someone is doing a posture wrong, the instructor shouldn't correct them at the time but wait until after class.

The only way I'd really agree with that logic is if the instructor gave some explanation as to why they thought this person shouldn't have been drinking water. I've been having an increased number of conversations about coaching as of late (not with the intention of me coaching so much as I have friends who coach rowing) and it's not helpful to tell someone to do or not do something but not tell them why assuming they hadn't already been told why. This isn't unique to sports or other physical activities either.

Never mind that hydration is important in general, this person could have been dehydrated, there could have been a whole host of reasons unknown to the instructor that necessitated this person drinking water, etc. Then again I also suggested that we all take a water break in the quad I was rowing in this morning (we were already stopped and I think we had just turned around). Needless to say, everyone thought it was a good idea because who wants to be dehydrated while exercising?

I think there's two different points being discussed:

(1) whether it's a good idea to restrict hydration while exercising, especially in a hot room for an extended period of time (I think that's a lousy idea and if a yoga teacher told me not to -- none ever has in several decades of doing yoga -- I would politely tell them that I'd rather not faint or have a heat stroke.

(2) whether an instructor of any kind should refrain from giving instruction in live time and just let a student do something the instructor believes is wrong so as to avoid hurting someone's feelings. I think that's a lousy idea, too. "Oh, just keep playing that passage incorrectly doing the entire lesson, and at the end, after you've reinforced the muscle memory of the wrong way of doing it, I'll point out your fingering error or whatever."


Edited to fix a couple of typos that affected readability.

To your second point - telling someone to effectively "make a different choice" is only really useful if they know why they need to make a different choice. That's true of sports and that's true of music. Hence my, having said in the post that you quoted, "it's not helpful to tell someone to do or not do something but not tell them why assuming they hadn't already been told why."

I only quoted you because you had quoted me and seemed to be suggesting that my point about timing of the instruction was wrong because it didn't address the content of the instruction, and I was trying to make clear that those are two different issues.

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

lauragreenbaum wrote: »

If it's a yoga thing, fine, but I think it was unnecessary to call her out in front of the class. She could have waited til after the class and explained it.

I disagree. That's like saying if someone is doing a posture wrong, the instructor shouldn't correct them at the time but wait until after class.

The only way I'd really agree with that logic is if the instructor gave some explanation as to why they thought this person shouldn't have been drinking water. I've been having an increased number of conversations about coaching as of late (not with the intention of me coaching so much as I have friends who coach rowing) and it's not helpful to tell someone to do or not do something but not tell them why assuming they hadn't already been told why. This isn't unique to sports or other physical activities either.

Never mind that hydration is important in general, this person could have been dehydrated, there could have been a whole host of reasons unknown to the instructor that necessitated this person drinking water, etc. Then again I also suggested that we all take a water break in the quad I was rowing in this morning (we were already stopped and I think we had just turned around). Needless to say, everyone thought it was a good idea because who wants to be dehydrated while exercising?

I think there's two different points being discussed:

(1) whether it's a good idea to restrict hydration while exercising, especially in a hot room for an extended period of time (I think that's a lousy idea and if a yoga teacher told me not to -- none ever has in several decades of doing yoga -- I would politely tell them that I'd rather not faint or have a heat stroke.

(2) whether an instructor of any kind should refrain from giving instruction in live time and just let a student do something the instructor believes is wrong so as to avoid hurting someone's feelings. I think that's a lousy idea, too. "Oh, just keep playing that passage incorrectly doing the entire lesson, and at the end, after you've reinforced the muscle memory of the wrong way of doing it, I'll point out your fingering error or whatever."


Edited to fix a couple of typos that affected readability.

To your second point - telling someone to effectively "make a different choice" is only really useful if they know why they need to make a different choice. That's true of sports and that's true of music. Hence my, having said in the post that you quoted, "it's not helpful to tell someone to do or not do something but not tell them why assuming they hadn't already been told why."

I only quoted you because you had quoted me and seemed to be suggesting that my point about timing of the instruction was wrong because it didn't address the content of the instruction, and I was trying to make clear that those are two different issues.

I think we're potentially talking past each other. I thought that I made it fairly clear in the first sentence of my first reply that my main issue with what you had said was the lack of explanation.

I think one of us is definitely talking past the other.

My understanding of how we got to this point is that someone else (not you) made a statement about the appropriate timing of the instruction on (not) drinking water. I responded (quoting that other person), saying that I disagreed, and that it is appropriate for instructions to be given during the class, proximate to the behavior the instruction relates to. You responded, quoting me, with a statement about the content of the instructions (that they should include an explanation). I responded, quoting you, pointing out that content and timing are two different issues. I did not explicitly state, because I thought it was obvious, that I was talking about timing and you were talking about content. You responded as though I was making a "point" about content. I was not making a point about content because I wasn't talking about content.

Since you insist, however, I've got no problem with an instructor explaining "why," and in general, I think it would be a good thing. I'm not certain I want to commit to its always being necessary and proper, particularly at a given place and time. I can imagine an explanation of "why" being sufficiently complicated as to be inappropriate to devote time to during a group class, interrupting the activity that others have paid for. I can also imagine the instruction being urgently important to health and safety that insisting on immediate compliance before a lengthy explanation would be prudent. If I'm giving someone a driving lesson, I expect them to brake when I tell them, without my having to explain why first.

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

lauragreenbaum wrote: »

If it's a yoga thing, fine, but I think it was unnecessary to call her out in front of the class. She could have waited til after the class and explained it.

I disagree. That's like saying if someone is doing a posture wrong, the instructor shouldn't correct them at the time but wait until after class.

The only way I'd really agree with that logic is if the instructor gave some explanation as to why they thought this person shouldn't have been drinking water. I've been having an increased number of conversations about coaching as of late (not with the intention of me coaching so much as I have friends who coach rowing) and it's not helpful to tell someone to do or not do something but not tell them why assuming they hadn't already been told why. This isn't unique to sports or other physical activities either.

Never mind that hydration is important in general, this person could have been dehydrated, there could have been a whole host of reasons unknown to the instructor that necessitated this person drinking water, etc. Then again I also suggested that we all take a water break in the quad I was rowing in this morning (we were already stopped and I think we had just turned around). Needless to say, everyone thought it was a good idea because who wants to be dehydrated while exercising?

I think there's two different points being discussed:

(1) whether it's a good idea to restrict hydration while exercising, especially in a hot room for an extended period of time (I think that's a lousy idea and if a yoga teacher told me not to -- none ever has in several decades of doing yoga -- I would politely tell them that I'd rather not faint or have a heat stroke.

(2) whether an instructor of any kind should refrain from giving instruction in live time and just let a student do something the instructor believes is wrong so as to avoid hurting someone's feelings. I think that's a lousy idea, too. "Oh, just keep playing that passage incorrectly doing the entire lesson, and at the end, after you've reinforced the muscle memory of the wrong way of doing it, I'll point out your fingering error or whatever."


Edited to fix a couple of typos that affected readability.

To your second point - telling someone to effectively "make a different choice" is only really useful if they know why they need to make a different choice. That's true of sports and that's true of music. Hence my, having said in the post that you quoted, "it's not helpful to tell someone to do or not do something but not tell them why assuming they hadn't already been told why."

I only quoted you because you had quoted me and seemed to be suggesting that my point about timing of the instruction was wrong because it didn't address the content of the instruction, and I was trying to make clear that those are two different issues.

I think we're potentially talking past each other. I thought that I made it fairly clear in the first sentence of my first reply that my main issue with what you had said was the lack of explanation.

I think one of us is definitely talking past the other.

The section of your most recent post that I quoted? Not useful. Thinly veiled insults and baiting isn't helpful for anyone nor is it productive (or kind, among other things).