"with more than 14 million people practicing yoga or tai chi nationwide, up 136% since 2000, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists and chiropractors across the country are dealing with the increasing fallout from yoga gone awry."

This quote is kind of weird, because tai chi comes out of nowhere, and goes nowhere (tai chi is never mentioned again) so I can only assume it's included to inflate the numbers. Also, I find the idea that you could possibly hurt yourself doing tai chi to be pretty hilarious. You would have to manage to poke your eye out with your own hand, or step on the hem of your trousers and do a classic banana-peel slip into midair and land on your back. Or maybe you could do it in a room where all surfaces are covered with six-inch iron spikes.

The implicit message is: eastern movement disciplines are scary.

But at this point the article could still be informative. It could be about avoiding injury and finding good instructors. Then we get to this paragraph:

"The truth is, yoga, regardless of the form, doesn't offer a comprehensive way to get fit. According to a study by the American Council on Exercise <..> dedicated yoga practitioners show no improvement in cardiovascular health. It's not the best way to lose weight either. <..> Even power yoga burns fewer calories than a comparable session of calisthenics. And while yoga has been shown to alleviate stress and osteoarthritis, it doesn't develop the muscle-bearing strength needed to help with osteoporosis."

So, the real message of this article is plain: don't do yoga for fitness. It won't do a thing for you, and it might even hurt you. Give up. Feel bad that you're not going to that calisthenics class, instead of feeling bad that you're not going to that power yoga class.

I went looking for details on the actual American Council on Exercise study, and I found this 2005 press release, which concludes that "while the yoga group showed numerous improvements in strength and endurance as well as improved balance and flexibility, they did not burn a significant amount of calories. <..> similar to a slow walk."

No mention of a lack of cardiovascular improvement, and "improvements in strength and endurance" would seem to imply that yes, it does develop the muscle-bearing strength needed to help with osteoporosis.

I am also skeptical about the idea that yoga is inherently as strenuous as a slow walk, without regard to what pose sequence you're doing. This is implied in the sentence "Even power yoga burns fewer calories than a comparable session of calisthenics." So, most yoga is comparable to a slow walk, but power yoga is comparable to calisthenics? That's quite a range. There seem to be important details missing about how effective your yoga practice in particular might be in regard to weight loss, cardiovascular health, or muscle-bearing strength.

Also, this article fails to mention it, but exercise on its own isn't necessarily an effective weight loss strategy, no matter what that exercise is.

The article concludes:

"Part of the problem is that increasingly, the people teaching yoga don't know enough about it. <..> "Yoga means bringing together mind, body and spirit, but in Western yoga, we've distilled it down to body," says Shana Meyerson, an instructor in Los Angeles. "That's not even yoga anymore. If the goal is to look like Madonna, you're better off running or spinning." Namaste to that."

First off, running or spinning? Spinning?

Oh, wait, "spinning" seems to be fitness-nerd-talk for intense pretend cycling. And here I thought people were engaging in some kind of Sufi whirling dervish thing for fitness. That sounded kind of cool.

But I have to wonder, why is this article so pointed in its anti-yoga propaganda? Ms. Meyerson is a yoga instructor, so one can presume that in general she wants people to study yoga. Is she trying to keep fitness-seeking dilettantes out of her classes? And why is my motivation in taking her class any of her business anyway? And why does the article conclude with "namaste to that"? Namaste to what? To "that's not even yoga anymore," or, "you're better off running or spinning"? And can you "namaste" an abstract concept? Namaste literally means "I bow to you."" and is commonly used as a greeting between people.

I am also rather offended by the idea that fitness doesn't have anything to do with bringing together mind and body. Fitness is about having a good relationship with your body -- feeling comfortable in it, being able to count on it, and knowing how to listen to it. The article seems to assume that fitness equals cosmetic weight loss and only that. I would claim, "that's not even fitness anymore."