Biotensegrity- The Mechanics of Fascia

Abstract

Fascia is the fabric of the body; not the vestments, covering the corpus, but the warp and weft of the material. The other tissues, muscle and bone, liver and lung, gut and urinary, brain and endocrine, are embroidered into the fascial fabric. Remove all other tissues from their fascial bed and the structure and form of the corpus remains, ghostlike, but clearly defined. The fascial system is a continuum,{ (Guimberteau et al 2007) } a structure that evolved hierarchically from the one cell embryo to the organism, and it is constantly adapting to new stresses to meet the structural demands of the organism. Fascia without stiffeners would be as limp as a rag doll; remove the hydroxyapetite crystals from bone, and the form of bones remain, but soft, as if the starch has been removed from a stiff shirt. Wolff { } recognized that bone is stiffened in response to compression stress and what must happen is that the support structure of the body, the fascia with its enmeshed bony stiffeners, evolves in accordance to physical laws. Fascia is a tension network, with all the collagen inherently stressed, the so-called 'pre-stress' of biologic tissues. Where does the compression arise? It is easy to see in an archer's bow. The bowstring pulls the limbs of the bow towards the center belly of the bow, compressing it, and bending the bow into its characteristic shape. Now imagine the 'bow' being compressed toward its belly by multiple bowstrings that encircle the bow and are all pulled at once. If the forces were balanced, the bow would not bend, but merely compress. Tension elements at each end that compress toward the center can balance to create a pure compression force, and, in a tensioned fascial network bone will be laid down, according to Wolff's law. For this to happen, there must be some evolutionary structural process that is governed by the rules of physics and influence by the genome. In 1981 { } a structural model was proposed that incorporated the physical laws related to triangulated, (and therefore, inherently stable), structural forms, 'closest packing', and foams, and the 'tensegrity' structures as conceived by Kenneth Snelson {and Buckminster Fuller { (Fuller, & Applewhite 1975)} into a biologic model that would appropriately model organism from viruses to vertebrates, their systems and sub-systems, biotensegrity. Biotensegrity reverses the centuries old concept that the skeleton is the frame upon which the soft tissue is draped, and replaces it with an integrated fascial fabric with 'floating'

Full text

BIOTENSEGRITY- THE MECHANICS OF FASCIA
Stephen M. Levin
Danièle-Claude Martin
Fascia is the fabric of the body; not the vestments, covering the corpus, but the warp
and weft of the material. The other tissues, muscle and bone, liver and lung, gut and
urinary, brain and endocrine, are embroidered into the fascial fabric. Remove all other
tissues from their fascial bed and the structure and form of the corpus remains,
ghostlike, but clearly defined. The fascial system is a continuum, (Guimberteau et al
2007) a structure that evolved hierarchically from the one cell embryo to the organism,
and it is constantly adapting to new stresses to meet the structural demands of the
organism. Fascia without stiffeners would be as limp as a rag doll; remove the
hydroxyapetite crystals from bone, and the form of bones remain, but soft, as if the
starch has been removed from a stiff shirt. Wolff (Wolff, J., Wessinghage, D. 1892)
recognized that bone is stiffened in response to compression stress and what must
happen is that the support structure of the body, the fascia with its enmeshed bony
stiffeners, evolves in accordance to physical laws.
Fascia is a tension network, with all the collagen inherently stressed, the so-called
‘pre-stress’ of biologic tissues. Where does the compression arise? It is easy to see in
an archer’s bow. The bowstring pulls the limbs of the bow towards the center belly of
the bow, compressing it, and bending the bow into its characteristic shape. Now
imagine the ‘bow’ being compressed toward its belly by multiple bowstrings that encircle
the bow and are all pulled at once. If the forces were balanced, the bow would not
bend, but merely compress. Tension elements at each end that compress toward the
center can balance to create a pure compression force, and, in a tensioned fascial
network bone will be laid down, according to Wolff’s law.
For this to happen, there must be some evolutionary structural process that is governed
by the rules of physics and influence by the genome. In 1981 (Levin, S. M. 1981) a
structural model was proposed that incorporated the physical laws related to
triangulated, (and therefore, inherently stable), structural forms, ‘closest packing’, and
foams, and the ‘tensegrity’ structures as conceived by Kenneth Snelson (Snelson, K. )
and Buckminster Fuller (Fuller, & Applewhite 1975) into a biologic model that would
appropriately model organism from viruses to vertebrates, their systems and sub-
systems, biotensegrity. Biotensegrity reverses the centuries old concept that the
skeleton is the frame upon which the soft tissue is draped, and replaces it with an
integrated fascial fabric with ‘floating’ compression elements, (bones in vertebrates),
enmeshed within the interstices of the tensioned elements.
For a structure to be stable with flexible joints, it must be triangulated, as only triangles
are stable with flexible joints. Biologic structures, their elements joined by surface
tension, and flexible soft tissues, must be triangulated structures for them to exist. If not
!1

triangulated, it would require stiff joints, or constant, unobtainable, muscle forces to
keep from collapsing. Of the three fully triangulated structures, the tetrahedron,
octahedron and icosahedron, the icosahedron is the most suitable for biologic modeling.
It has the largest volume for surface area, is omnidirectional, closest packing
capabilities, and endo and exo skeletal configurations, where the compression elements
are either in its outer shell, or incorporated into the innards of the structure (Fig. 3.6.1).
The internally vectored icosahedron is a tensegrity structure, simply defined as ‘floating
compression’ elements enmeshed in a continuous tension network. The compression
elements are isolated from one another and the load is carried through the network, and
not a compression loaded ‘column of blocks’, governed by gravity-oriented levers, as is
the norm in most familiar structures. The tensegrity icosahedron can be linked in an
infinite array, hierarchically and as fractals { (Mandelbrot 1982)}, (Fig. 3.6.2).It is a low
energy structure, using minimal materials to enclose space and give maximum strength.
Because of triangulation, it has flexible joints but is stable and adaptable. Its mechanics
are nonlinear, which is consistent with biologic materials and structures. Columns
depend on gravity to hold them together; without gravity columns and structures that
depend on columns for support, would fall apart. Tensegrities are self-contained
structures and do not rely on gravity as a cohesive force. Comparing biologic structure
properties with the properties of standard, lever mechanics and tensegrity Icosahedral
mechanics we get:
Ta bl e 3 . 6. 1
It is obvious that lever systems, the standard for over three centuries, does not match
the qualities needed for biologic modeling, and tensegrity icosahedral systems are a
perfect match.
Like Coins crowded together on a tabletop, bubbles in foam, cells in a beehive, biologic
cells must conform and adjust to the pressures surrounding them. The individual cell
must keep from being crushed by external forces. From the standpoint of efficiency and
conservation of energy, crowded objects on a two-dimensional plane will closest pack
as hexagons. Three-dimensional cells will conform to what has been known about
foams for over 100 years; they will closest pack with three edges meeting at 120
degrees and four edges meeting at a corner. Icosahedrons will closest pack around a
central, smaller, icosahedron, following these rules. Fuller (Fuller, & Applewhite 1975)
has described the closest packing of icosahedrons as the closest relationship of energy
efficient, symmetrical, stable structures in three-dimensions. In the past, cells were
thought of as bags of fluid and the incompressibility of fluid kept them from being
crushed. In the early 1930’s an internal cell skeleton, the cytoskeleton was suspected,
but it took another two decades to demonstrate it using the electron microscope. Ingber
(Ingber et al 1981) proposed that the cytoskeleton is a tensegrity structure with a
mechanical structural framework to support cell integrity and he models these
tensegrities as icosahedrons. Following Wolff’s law, the cytoskeleton will align itself in
such a way to resist the crushing compressive load, and the rigid tubulin of the
cytoskeleton becomes its ‘bones’. Levin (Levin, S.M.1982; Levin, S.M. 1986; Levin
S.M.1988; Levin, S.M. 1990) proposed that the same mechanism created a hierarchical
evolution of the musculoskeletal system, a hierarchical tensegrity. Kroto { (Kroto 1988)}
!2

the Nobel Prize winner for his work on C60, the Icosahedral form of carbon,
demonstrates the self-organizing properties of icosahedrons into sphere-like structures
and ‘icosaspirals’, helical structures of stacking icosahedrons. Icosahedrons and
icosaspirals are ubiquitous in biologic structures as demonstrated at every scale level
from C60 , some amino acids, ( picometer, 10 -12m), viruses, microtubules, (nanometer,
10-9m), RBCs, pollen grains,(micrometer,10-6m), Radiolarians ranging from 10-4m to
10-3m, all the way up to organisms such as pufferfish at 10-2m, and greater. This
hierarchy of structure development results in a fascial continuum, from subcellular to
total organism.
Central to this concept is the understanding that the fascia imparts a continuous tension
to the system. Fascia displays the nonlinearity characteristic of all biologic tissues. In
nonlinear tissues, the stress/strain relationship never reaches zero, (a characteristic of
linear materials), and there is always tension inherent in the system. It gives the
‘continuous tension’, an essential component of tensegrity, that helps set the tone of the
organism. There are active contractile elements in fascia { (Schleip et al 2005)} and the
fascial network is intimately bound to muscle { (Passerieux et al 2007)}. Muscle also
has intrinsic ‘tone’ and is never completely lax, and the entire fascial network is
continually tensed, by both intrinsic tension and active contractions that can be ‘tuned’.
The mechanics of tensegrity structures are quite different than the lever mechanics that
have been applied to biologic structures since Borelli’s { (Borelli 1680)} treatise.
Contrary to lever mechanics, hierarchical tensegrity structures have only tension and
compression members. There is no shear or torque, nor are there bending moments.
Orientation in space has no effect on how the structure functions. Forces are
distributed throughout the system rather than locally concentrated as they are in lever
systems. The system functions as a single unit. All this makes for a more energy
efficient system. Movement is not bending of hinges, but expansion, repositioning and
contraction of tensegrities. An instant repositioning of tensegrities allows for freely
moving joints while the triangulation imparts stability of form and function. Biotensegrity
is the unifying mechanical structural concept that bridges the islands of information that
we now have about fascia and its role in body functions, and makes them a unified
archipelago for understanding fascia's role in anatomy and physiology!
!3

The concept of biotensegrity not only offers a theoretical foundation to body mechanics
and dynamics, it is also appropriate for establishing a concrete base to develop a
process that can be seen as an internal fascial training. We propose mental motor
imagery involving visual representation and kinesthetic awareness suggested by the
principle of biotensegrity to support movement.
The stability of a tensegrity structure is due to the equilibrium between outward pushing
of the rigid elements that tense the tension network, and inward pulling of the tension
continuum that compresses the rigid elements without letting them touch each other:
tensegrity structures can be seen as restrained expansion. Expansion (or space)
creates tension. An increase of tension in a tensegrity structure lets it resist and become
stronger. The training consists in using mental processes to generate a tangible feeling
of the bones as space-makers and of the space between them. As a result, we can
develop the perception of a tensional internal support. Once having found this internal
support, it becomes possible to “relax” within it. “Relaxation”, far from being a simple
“letting-go”, with its well-known effect of collapsing and weakening, is a redistribution of
tension within the tensile fascial network with the qualities of space and strength, and a
balance of tension. Space, tension, resistance, strength, internal support and relaxation
are concomitant, even equivalent, characteristics.
A further step of the training is to include these qualities in movement. While moving a
tensegrity structure, we can make several observations. To move it, we grasp it at its
two ends (Fig. 3.6.3) and impart a rotational movement in them, one in relation to each
other, or move one end, stabilizing the other, which creates a relative opposite
movement of the stable end. Movement has an intrinsically polar quality and we call
those areas where movement is initiated, “poles of movement”. Movement curves the
structure, but the elements within respond by a new spatial organization without
bending. Tension remains throughout the structure, on its concave side as well as on its
convex side, and none of the rigid elements compress one another (Fig. 3.6.3). By
focusing on the rotation of each pole separately, and letting each thumb follow a spiral
whose direction is chosen to maintain tension on the concave side of the curve, we get
a homogeneous curve, with all the elements involved relative to each other in a global
movement (Fig. 3.6.3). If instead, we focus on moving the poles toward each other in
the space external to the structure, as is usually done in the movement instructions, the
result will be an externally shorter distance between the poles and a sharp angle in the
structure (Fig. 3.6.3). In this case, only a few elements of the structure have moved
internally, the movement is local and the tension is easily lost on the concave side.
In the body, poles of movement can be the two bones ends building a joint, the
tensegrity structure between being the interarticular space. Poles can also be chosen as
any two remote bones, like two vertebrae, the intervening tensegrity structure the
considered segment of the spine, or head and foot, the tensegrity structure between
being the whole body.
We may move one pole of a chosen body part, following the spiral that helps to maintain
the tension on the concave side, while maintaining the other pole stable. The cervical
curve and its poles, the head (occiput) and the first thoracic vertebra, can be taken as
an example. If, when flexing the head slightly, we maintain awareness of the occiput
moving along a spiral line directed upward and posterior, (Fig 4, upper bold spiral), it will
!1

prevent the head from “falling” forward and downward and it gives support to the front of
the neck.
Although the movement is subtle, you can feel the underlying vertebrae being carried
along through the activated tension network around the neck. Perhaps you can also feel
this movement spread over the spine and the whole body, as the body parts with their
poles are all interconnected, as shown in Fig. 3.6.4 for the spine. The movement is
slight, slow, minimal muscular force is employed and one can relax in the internally
supported structure. If you take one vertebra after the other as a pole and move them in
turn in the described manner, you achieve a complete flexion of the curve. Each
movement is slight, but every part moves. The movement is well distributed, occurring
at every vertebral level, and the throat is not compressed. You can also change the
direction and execute an extension following the dashed spiral (Fig. 3.6.4). Flexion
moves the cervical curve evenly out of the lordosis, and extension moves it into the
lordosis, but evenly and with the internal support that controls the movements that might
disrupt the curve. This way a body part that was rigid can be gently brought to life. If we
now consider one joint the moving structure, awareness of the internal support,
especially on the side of flexion, will prevent a closing or compression in the hollow of
the curve.
In addition to the direction of movement given by the spiral, we also include the resisting
quality of the tensed elements. By training the kinesthetic perception of the subtle
resistance that accompanies the movement, (which is an adaptation from a mental
technique used in a Chinese martial art), we enhance all the qualities already
mentioned. It is interesting to consider the resistance the result of two opposite
movements: the movement actually performed and the counter-movement that slows it
down. It is mentally challenging to perceive both simultaneously, but it is this training of
the nervous system that results in a profound improvement of fluidity, strength and
elasticity of movement.
By internalizing theses qualities, you can play with all the directions in space,
connecting the spirals continuously in alternatively small or large movements, in slow or
fast rhythms, which more overtly addresses the omnidirectionality of the fascial network,
its elasticity and its ability to react to different impulses such as stretch or vibration.
A characteristic of this training is the use of minimal muscular strength. Studies have
shown that, whether a movement is mentally or physically performed, the nervous
system tends to react similarly { (Malouin et al 2003)} and muscle strength is developed
{ (Ranganathan et al 2004)}. It means that mental imagery allows us the use of
muscular work in a remarkably economical manner to achieve optimal movement
efficiency and ease.
With time movements become naturally supported by the internalized principles of
biotensegrity: the perception of internal space as well as the feeling of the ubiquitous
tension that governs the mechanics of the body lead to a maximal recruitment of the
structure under optimally balanced tension. Consequently, movements become freer
and more efficient, be it in movement disciplines, in daily activities, or in a therapeutic
setting. An additional consequence of this approach to body structure and movement is
to create a useful relationship to gravity. Instead of being a force that compresses our
organism and makes us small and bent, gravity becomes a force that initiates space
and strength in our structure.
!2

References:
Borelli, G., 1680, De motu animalium , Apud Petrum Gosse,
Fuller, R.B. & Applewhite, E.J., 1975, Synergetics : explorations in the geometry of
thinking, Macmillan, New York.
Guimberteau, J.C., Bakhach, J., Panconi, B. & Rouzaud, S., 2007, A fresh look at
vascularized flexor tendon transfers: concept, technical aspects and results, Journal of
Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 60(7), pp. 793-810.
Ingber, D.E., Madri, J.A. & Jamieson, J.D., 1981, Role of basal lamina in neoplastic
disorganization of tissue architecture, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 78(6), pp. 3901-5.
Kroto, H., 1988, Space, Stars, C60, and Soot, Science (New York, N.Y.), 242(4882), pp.
1139-45.
Levin, S.M., 1981, 34th Annual Conf. Alliance for Engineering in Medicine and Biology.
The Icosahedron as a biologic support system. Huston, p.404
Levin, S.M.,1986, 30th AnnualMeeting Society for General Systems Research, The
Icosahedron as the 3-D model for biological support. pp. G14-26.
Levin, S.M.,1988, Phys Med Biol, Space truss: A systems approach to cervical spine
mechanics. IOP Publishing, San Antonio, p.212.
Levin, S.M., 1990, 34th Meeting of The International Society for the Systems Sciences.
, The primordial structure. Portland, pp. 716-720..
Levin, S.M., 1982, The Ida P. Rolf Library of Structural Integration, Bulletin of Structural
Integration, 8(1), pp. 31-3.
Malouin, F., Richards, C.L., Jackson, P.L., Dumas, F. & Doyon, J., 2003, Brain
activations during motor imagery of locomotor-related tasks: a PET study, Human brain
mapping, 19(1), pp. 47-62.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1982, The fractal geometry of nature New York, NY: Freeman.
Passerieux, E., Rossignol, R., Letellier, T. & Delage, J.P., 2007, Physical continuity of
the perimysium from myofibers to tendons: involvement in lateral force transmission in
skeletal muscle, Journal of structural biology, 159(1), pp. 19-28.
Ranganathan, V.K., Siemionow, V., Liu, J.Z., Sahgal, V. & Yue, G.H., 2004, From mental
power to muscle power--gaining strength by using the mind, Neuropsychologia, 42(7),
pp. 944-56.
Schleip, R., Klingler, W. & Lehmann-Horn, F., 2005, Active fascial contractility: Fascia
may be able to contract in a smooth muscle-like manner and thereby influence
musculoskeletal dynamics, Medical hypotheses, 65(2), pp. 273-7.
Snelson, K., http://www.kennethsnelson.net/, . Retrieved November 10, 2009.
Wolff, J. , Wessinghage, D., 1892, Das gesetz der transformation der knochen,
Hirschwald, Berlin.
!3

Ta bl e 3 . 6. 1
Fig. 3.6.1. ‘Exoskeletal’ icosahedron, with 20 triangulated faces, 12 vertices, 30
edges.and its ‘endoskeletal’ icosahedron counterpart. In the endoskeletal icosahedron,
the triangulated outer shell is under tension and the internalized compression struts
are‘floating’ within the tension shell. The compression struts span to opposite vertices,
they do not touch one another, and do not pass through the center of the icosahedron.
Biologic Systems
Lever Systems
Tensegrity Icosahedron
Nonlinear
Linear
Nonlinear
Global
Local
Global
Structurally Continuous
Discontinuous
Structurally Continuous
Gravity Independent
Gravity Dependent
Gravity Independent
Omnidirectional
Unidirectional
Omnidirectional
Low Energy
High Energy
Low Energy
Flexible Joints
Rigid Joints
Flexible Joints
!4

Fig. 3.6,2 Hierarchical tensegrity icosahedrons. The pattern is repeated at every
organizational level, from sub-cellular to organism.
.
Fig: 3.6.3:
Taking a tensegrity structure at the poles of
movement and rotating them following the
spirals maintain tension throughout the
structure, also on its concave side (thumbs
side). The movement is evenly distributed, the
curve homogeneous. Moving the poles while
focusing on the distance between them,
results in an unevenly distributed movement
with a sharp angle in the structure
!5
being compressed. Like the bike wheel, they can
exist independent of gravity and are local load-
distributing. They have a unique structural
property of behaving non-linearly, as does the
spine and its components, and most biologic tissue
(Gordon 1988).
Fuller (1975) has shown that tensegrity icosa-
hedra can link in an infin ite array with a ny exte rnal
form, as shown in Fig. 10.11. When linked, these
structures can function as a single icosahedron in
a hierarchical system. This model has been used
to model endoskeletal structures, such as an
upper extremity and cervical spine (Levin 1990),
with the bones functioning as the compression
rods and the soft tissues as the tension elements.
If we apply these evolutionary structural concepts
to the sacrum, we can see how the tensegrity
sacropelvic model develops. The sacrum, fixed in
space by the tension of its ligaments and fascial
envelope, functions as the connecting link between
the spine and upper (or forequarter) extremities,
Fig. 10.11 An infinite array of tensegrity icosahedra.
Adapted from Fuller 1975.)
TENSEGRITY 165
and the pelvis and lower (hindquarter) extremities.
It evolved ontogenetically, directed not only by
phylogen etic forces, but also by th e physical forces
of embryologic development. Wolff (1892) and
Thompson (1965) state that the structure of the
body is essentially a bluep rint of the forces app lied
to these structures. Carter (1991) theorizes that
the mechanical forces in utero are the determinants
of embryologic structure that, in turn, evolves to
fetal and then newborn structure. From the
physicalist and biomechanics viewpoint, as well
as from Darwinian theory, the evolution of struc-
ture is an optimization problem (Fox 1988,
Hildebrandt and Tromba 1984). At each step of
development, the evolving structure optimizes so
that it exists with the least amount of energy
expenditure. At the cellular level, the internal
structure of the cells, the microtubules, together
with the cell wall, must resist the crushing forces
of th e surroun ding milieu a nd the exploding forces
of its internal metabolism. Following Wolff's law,
the internal skeleton of the cell aligns itself in the
most efficient way to resist those forces. Ingber
and colleagues (Ingber & Jamieson 1985, Wang
et al 1993) have shown that the internal micro-
tubular skeletal structure of a cell is a tensegrity
icosahedron. Other subcellular structures, such
as viruses, cletherins, and endocysts, are icosahedra
(de Duve 1984, Wildy & Home 1963). A hier-
archical construction of an organism would use
the same mechanical laws that build the most
basic biologic structure and use it to generate the
more complex organism. Not only is the beehive
an icosahedron, but so also is the bee's eye.
Many other organelles and organisms look like
and/or function as icosahedra (Levin 1982, 1986,
1990).
Following the concepts of Carter (1991), Wolff
(1892), and Thompson (1965), a tensegrity-
structured pelvis will build itself Since the fetus
develops upside down in a gravity-independent
environment, as do fish eggs in water, the pelvis
develops as a tensegrity ring, which is the most
efficient structure to do that job. It does not
develop as a structure to resist superincumbent
weight-bearing. If it did, it would not function
during its initial role in life of resisting in utero
forces. It would also crush during delivery.
Ontog eny recapitulates phylogeny. The one -celled

Fig. 3.6.4:
Possible poles of movement in the spine. The text refers to the two upper poles
comprising the cervical curve. The upper pole (occiput) follows the bold spiral directed
upward and posterior in flexion, and the dashed spiral upward and posterior in
extension. The bold spirals show the direction of the spirals according to the global
mobilization of the spinal curves out of their more or less rigid shape.
!6

!7