“If you can’t do this what the fuck else are you going to do in life. Hit this rep, otherwise you really are useless. Come on you prick.”

As I sit here now and hear myself read those words out loud, they sound extreme and almost absurd but that was my reality, my self-talk, for a long time. Once I began to take my practice more seriously it became a large part of my life and my identity. My self-talk whilst I would practice became by and large very negative. Those thoughts regularly passed through my head, and I really did hold onto them, identify with them. I fell in love with a practice and shortly thereafter it (myself) began to punish me. So miserable it eventually made me that if I wanted to continue, I knew I had to look for remedies to the malady. There must be another way…

Subscribe now

1. How would you speak to and support a best friend? Let’s imagine your best friend in your situation, doing what you’re doing. What do you tell them? Do you tell them that if they don’t make that rep perfectly, they are a useless piece of shit? It’s highly unlikely. You’re much more likely to motivate and encourage them. “Good job man, keep going. You got this, you’re doing what matters”.

2. The person you will most converse with in your life is yourself. Every day, many, many hundreds of times a day. The manner and tone of that conversation will radically impact your experience of life.

3. How much more pleasant would your experience be if we could change that narrative and instead, replace those berating and demoralizing conversations you have with yourself with the dialogue that you would direct toward your friend?

To this day I remember the very moment that I heard a psychologist talk about the above three points and the concept of treating yourself as you would a best friend… I was blown away by the power of such a slight reframe. I wouldn’t dream of speaking to my friends the way I speak to myself.

At first, it felt silly. I found myself feeling awkward during training sessions. I would notice that voice creeping up on me, the devil some people call it, the dictator others, and I would remind myself of the pact I had made: “This rewiring has to be intentional, say it out loud…”

“You’ve got this. You’ve done hard things before, this is just another rep”, thinking of what I would say to my best friend and saying it out loud. “Honestly man, you’ve absolutely got this, you fucking got this”.

Sometimes just the words themselves would make me chuckle and smile. Sometimes they would make me cringe. Yet, I noticed that I was able to perform just as well, if not better and it the sensations grew to become pleasant. It felt good to support and encourage myself.

Of course that’s not to say that all of a sudden my inner dialogue is this bliss of encouraging conversation but I am able to recognise that bastard (Barry I call him) when he gets a bit spicy and I am able to come back to who and what most benefits me in the moment – which is almost always being generous with myself, encouraging and compassionate.

I’d been hostile with myself because I believed otherwise, I wouldn’t be capable – a line of thought that I know now was born of fear, a fear that I’m not good enough. As is often the case in life, for years I had confused correlation with causation. Self-criticism was present whilst I was progressing. I had concluded that it was causal to my success and that otherwise I would be soft, complacent or lazy. I could train longer and harder than most people because I could sustain the self-criticism. Those were my conclusions. Now the more interesting question was becoming what might happen if I stop assuming self-criticism is necessary?

I know I am not alone in this experience. Perhaps you too are mistaking self-criticism for the source of your discipline and success? Perhaps, like I did, you have confused correlation with causation, assuming hostility is integral to your growth because you can’t remember one without the other. But what if your standards are just as high without the criticism? What if fear isn’t necessary and what if you're actually far more capable than you actually think?

Share

Abstract

Handbalancing is a unique and understudied physically demanding movement practice, yet little is known about the motivational processes that sustain long-term commitment. Handbalancing is largely self-directed, non-competitive and lacks formalised instruction. This study aimed to explore self-determination and the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness in advanced level handbalancers, who learnt as adults. A total of 12 practitioners took part in one-to-one semi-structured interviews. Through reflexive thematic analysis five themes were generated: A Deep Devotion, Embracing Discomfort, Shaped with Others, Sharpened Alone, Autonomy in Action, and The Process. Findings suggest that that practitioners were high in autonomous motivation and high in perceived autonomy. Competence emerged not as a stable sense of effectiveness, but as an ongoing negotiation, sustained by tolerance for failure, regular reframing and trust in the process. Relatedness was experienced in more varied and nuanced ways, depending on individual preference and geographical location. Based on these findings future research should compare experienced practitioners with dropouts and test longitudinally whether self-determined motivation and basic psychological needs satisfaction predicts retention and progress.

Background

Handbalancing is a physically and mentally demanding movement practice that originates from the circus arts and has evolved beyond performance settings into general movement and fitness cultures. Whilst traditionally a niche discipline, handbalancing has experienced an increase in popularity in recent years. In 2019, The Guardian published an article titled, “In over your head: how to master Instagram’s favourite pose” (Kalia, 2019). More recently, the Financial Times published “Could a handstand be your path to joy? How handbalancing has become a modern obsession” (Fraser, 2025). This increased exposure has facilitated greater participation and contributed to a growing global community.

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is an evidence‐based framework for understanding human motivation, wellness, and thriving across different areas of life (Standage & Ryan, 2020). SDT views people as inherently proactive and inclined to seek out optimal challenges and new experiences that can be mastered and integrated into a unified sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These growth tendencies are not automatic, instead they depend on ongoing social conditions that either nurture or hinder them (Standage & Ryan, 2020). Motivation is defined as ‘why we do what we do’ (Deci & Flaste, 1995). Within SDT, six distinct mini theories exist that address motivation, goals and wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2017). One of these is the Basic Psychological Needs Theory which posits three needs as being critical to psychological wellbeing and sustained motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). They are the need for autonomy, which is defined as feeling self-endorsed, volitional and not controlled, the need for competence, which is defined as feeling effective and capable in ones actions and environment, and relatedness, which is defined as feeling connected to others, experiencing a sense of belonging and feeling valued (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Organismic Integration Theory is another of these mini theories which details motivation, placing it on a continuum, with amotivation at the bottom end and intrinsic motivation at the top end. It explores what different types of motivation mean for optimal functioning and psychological wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Research using the SDT framework demonstrates that elite and advanced sportspeople exhibit higher levels of self-determined motivation, and basic needs satisfaction (Stenling et al., 2015; Reinboth et al., 2004; Quested & Duda, 2010, 2011).

Mastery, defined as command or comprehensive knowledge of a subject, art or process (Oxford University Press, n.d.) typically requires profound, arduous practice (Keegan et al., 2014). Although deliberate practice is considered central to skill development, it is often repetitive, difficult, and isolating, frequently judged as more demanding and less enjoyable than other related tasks (Ericsson et al., 1993). The perseverance required for mastery directs attention to the psychological processes underpinning motivation. From a SDT perspective, this would be explained by the fulfilment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, which sustain engagement even when practice is difficult and unenjoyable. In this study, mastery is understood as advanced technical proficiency in handbalancing, demonstrated through the ability to perform complex skills, most notably the one arm handstand.

Unlike most sports, where pedagogical models dominate and structured pathways guide progression, handbalancing is largely self-directed and lacks formalised instruction. Therefore, learning is more consistent with the principles of andragogy (Knowles, 1980), in which adult learners direct their own learning through experience, self-regulation, and problem solving. While not traditionally classified, handbalancing shares characteristics with early specialisation sports such as gymnastics and diving, where optimal trainability windows typically occur in childhood (Balyi & Hamilton, 2004; Kliethermes et al., 2021). Skills acquired during this time benefit from heightened neuromuscular plasticity and an increased movement efficiency (Diekfuss et al., 2020). Despite this, a small number of adults begin handbalancing later in life and achieve high levels of technical proficiency. By focusing on these advanced adult learners, this study seeks to explore the motivational processes and self-regulatory mechanisms that underpin mastery in an unconventional and largely self-directed learning environment.

Notwithstanding extensive quantitative support (Ryan et al., 2022), much research on SDT still relies on self-report questionnaires, which risk oversimplifying complex motivational processes. Qualitative studies have provided valuable insight into contexts such as physical education (White et al., 2021), wellbeing and ageing (Tang et al., 2020) and online learning (Salikhova et al., 2021). Within sport and athletic endeavours, qualitative research has explored SDT in relation to competitive and professional settings (De Cruz & Duncombe, 2016; Bentzen et al., 2014; Frøyen & Pensgaard, 2014) and among youth athletes (Almagro et al., 2015; Bean et al., 2018). However, little is known about how the basic psychological needs are experienced in non-competitive, self-directed practices, particularly in adult learners.

To date, no studies have explored SDT’s relevance to handbalancing, a discipline whose distinctive characteristics make it a unique and theoretically significant area of study. Given the fact that its non-competitive, largely self-directed and that no structured pathways for progression exist the motivational processes that underpin its engagement may look different from those of more conventional sports. More broadly, research into SDT, motivational processes and basic needs satisfaction within non-competitive, self-directed practices is lacking. Following on, no studies have explored SDT in adult learners pursuing mastery in physically demanding skills, where the absence of traditional external reinforcement places greater emphasis on intrinsic and self-determined forms of motivation. Theoretically, motivation to pursue mastery in such contexts stems primarily from internal factors, such as basic needs satisfaction and the drive for self-improvement (Ryan & Deci, 2020). However, no empirical research exists that explores this in relation to handbalancing.

A qualitative approach enables this study to capture the complexity of motivation within an unstructured, self-driven discipline like handbalancing. Exploring this setting also offers a unique opportunity to test and enrich SDT by exploring the basic psychological needs and how they present in an unconventional learning environment. By focusing on advanced adult practitioners, this study contributes to both the psychology of motivation and a broader understanding of adult learning and mastery development. Through an examination of the lived experiences of advanced adult handbalancers, this study explores how autonomy, competence, and relatedness relate to sustained motivation and mastery in a practice that is non-competitive, self-directed, and largely unstructured, a context where SDT has yet to be applied. Insights may have implications for skill acquisition, adult learning, coaching, and the design of interventions aimed at fostering resilience and long-term motivation in both sporting and non-sporting domains. This study set out explore how self-determination and the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness are experienced in advanced level adult handbalancers and underpin the pursuit of mastery. A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted with a purposive sample of twelve advanced adult handbalancers, and the data was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Methodology

Design

This study employed a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2019) to explore the experiences of advanced handbalance practitioners. A qualitative approach was selected to enable an in-depth understanding of how autonomy, competence, relatedness, and intrinsic motivation are experienced and expressed within this self-directed practice. Given that much SDT research has been quantitative, this study offers a complementary qualitative perspective, capturing how individuals make sense of their motivational experiences in context and providing rich, nuanced insights beyond those available through standardised measures (Tracy, 2010).

Participants

Participants were recruited via a brief study description posted on Instagram, outlining the inclusion criteria and inviting volunteers. Instagram was chosen as it hosts a large and active segment of the international handbalancing community. Over 20 individuals expressed interest. Eligibility was assessed against the inclusion criteria (see Table 1), resulting in 16 eligible participants. Purposive sampling was utilised to capture a wide range of lived experiences while maintaining direct relevance to the research question. Twelve was set as the upper limit in line with thematic saturation guidelines (Guest et al., 2006).

Table 1

Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Age 18 or over

Consistently hold a one-arm handstand for a minimum of ten seconds

Speak English^a

Exclusion Criteria

Being under age 18

Beginner / Intermediate level of practice^b

Notes:

a Not necessarily as first language

b A key rationale for this delimitation was that the psychological processes involved in long-term commitment and mastery differ meaningfully from those at earlier stages of skill development.

Twelve participants were selected to ensure diversity in gender, geographical background, training context, and level of experience, providing a cross-cultural perspective (see Table 2).

Positionality

This study adopts a critical realist ontology, assuming that psychological needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness (as defined in SDT) exist, while recognising that their expression and experience are shaped by personal and social context. Epistemologically, the study is grounded in theory-informed interpretivism, with SDT providing a conceptual framework to guide interpretation, while acknowledging the co-constructed, contextual nature of meaning-making.

The researcher is both a coach and practitioner within the handbalancing community, with extensive personal experience of its physical and psychological demands. This insider status facilitated rapid access to participants as well as a greater relational intimacy with the group, and an informed understanding of their shared experiences, training contexts and reference points (Greene, 2014). At the same time, this carried a risk of a loss of objectivity, leading to assumptions or projecting personal meanings onto participants’ accounts (Breen, 2007). To mitigate this, the researcher engaged in regular reflexive practice and kept a reflexive journal throughout data collection and analysis, documenting assumptions, reactions, and decision-making processes (Appendix G). This reflexive practice positioned the researcher’s perspective as an integral interpretive tool rather than something to be removed, consistent with the principles of reflexive thematic analysis, which views subjectivity as a resource that enriches, rather than undermines, analytic depth (Braun & Clarke, 2023).

Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were selected to allow participants to share rich, reflective accounts of their handbalancing experiences while enabling flexibility to explore emergent topics (DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). The interview schedule (Appendix B) was informed by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000), focusing on autonomy, competence, relatedness, and motivation. Items were adapted from existing SDT questionnaires and expanded to address the specific context of handbalancing. Open-ended prompts encouraged discussion of practice history, motivations, challenges, and emotional experiences. Example questions included: “Can you tell me about your practice and how you got started with handbalancing?” and “Have you experienced times when progress slowed, plateaued, or regressed? If so, where does your sense of competence and motivation come from in these moments?”.

Interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams between June and July 2025, accommodating participants in varied locations. Interviews ranged between 45–80 minutes, were conducted solely by the researcher, and were video and audio-recorded with participants’ consent. Informed consent (Appendix C) was obtained electronically after participants received a participant information sheet (Appendix D) detailing the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights. Participants also provided verbal consent before their interview. Participants were reminded that involvement was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time during the interview or up to two weeks afterwards without justification or penalty. Participants were debriefed post interview (Appendix E).

Interviews followed the schedule with flexibility. Not all questions were asked verbatim, and additional probes were used to clarify or deepen responses depending on the flow of the conversation. Further questions were asked when necessary to expand and deepen the conversation, helping to gain a more complete picture of each participant’s experiences. For example, one participant had used the phrase “to my detriment” on multiple occasions, to which the interviewer responded, “When you say, “to your detriment”, what do you mean exactly?”. Recordings were transcribed verbatim using Microsoft Teams’ transcription software, reviewed for accuracy, and anonymised. All procedures adhered to the British Psychological Society’s ethical guidelines. Data was stored securely in accordance with GDPR and MMU university guidelines.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA; Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2019). RTA was chosen for its compatibility with the study’s theory-informed interpretivist epistemology and its recognition of the researcher as an active agent in the construction of themes (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The analysis was theory-informed but remained open to emergent data. Themes were developed with reference to SDT, particularly the concepts of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and autonomous motivation. At the same time, the analysis remained open to patterns and meanings that extended beyond the SDT framework through reflexive engagement with the data.

The process followed Braun and Clarke’s six phases:

1. Familiarisation with the data – interviews were rewatched and transcripts were corrected where necessary. Next, each transcript was rereviewed, and key quotes were marked.

2. Generating codes – transcripts were coded initially at a semantic level and then at a latent level. Early example codes included “perseverance”, “obsessive determination” and “love of sensations” (Appendix F)

3. Generating initial themes – codes were grouped into potential themes through patterns of shared meaning. For example, “pushing beyond limits”, “finding satisfaction in struggle” and “motivated by difficulty” were united to create theme 2; embracing discomfort.

4. Reviewing potential themes – themes were reviewed and re-checked against initial codes and each other, to ensure sound and distinctive patterns of meaning.

5. Defining and naming themes – final themes were reviewed and defined, ensuring both internal consistency and clear and marked differences between themes.

6. Producing the report – final themes were supported with both analysis and discussion, interpreted in relation to the research questions and SDT.

RTA centres on “the researcher’s reflective and thoughtful engagement with their data and their reflexive and thoughtful engagement with the analytic process” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 594). From this perspective, meaning is understood as co-constructed through the researcher’s interpretive lens, shaped by their theoretical, epistemological, and experiential positioning. Therefore, the analysis presented here prioritises depth, transparency, and reflexive awareness over inter-rater reliability, in line with the epistemological commitments of RTA.

Subscribe now

Analysis & Discussion

Theme 1: A Deep Devotion

A defining characteristic of participants’ journey with handbalancing was their unwavering commitment to the practice. Persistence was not episodic but maintained over years of deliberate effort, often becoming part of their self-concept. As participant 7 reflected, “handstands, this is my lifestyle...” whilst participant 12 explained, “This is just a part of my daily routine. I’m not thinking, oh, I have to go to the gym, it’s just like, I brush my teeth...It’s become, such a lifestyle and routine. So, it’s just a part of me”. These quotes reflect an internalisation of the practice into self-identity. This internalisation is consistent with Organismic Integration Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which describes how behaviours can become fully integrated into one’s identity. In this state, practice is sustained not by obligation or reward, but because it reflects one’s values and sense of self. Participant 5 acknowledged this identity level integration, “It’s still a big part of who I think I am, who I identify with...”.

Intrinsic motivation, when an activity is fundamentally interesting or enjoyable, was also a central thread in these accounts and is considered the most self-determined form of motivation (Ryan et al., 2009). Intrinsic motivation is linked to long-term engagement and enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Participant 8’s words illustrate this:

“I can’t really describe it...this feeling of, like, something that like really lit me up that turned me on, like, this is amazing, and like nothing else in the in the world actually like gave me that. So, you know, there’s a reason I’ve stuck with handbalancing... It just gave me a sensation that I’ve never felt before. This like sensation of joy and flight...”

Whilst most participants spoke of a deep devotion to the practice, it wasn’t always described as enjoyable.

“I’ve committed to this. I know that some days will be shit but it’s the compounding of things, and showing up regardless... Honestly, I think that mindset can only come from something that you truly, truly love... not even love, but you’re so dedicated to (P1).”

Here, Participant 1 expresses a paradox; she loves the practice but some days its “shit”. This was a recurrent theme throughout interviews and reflects the depth of integration, as practice wasn’t dependent upon temporary satisfaction. According to SDT this reflects identified and integrated regulations. These are forms of external motivation that are autonomous, and often necessary to develop specific skills (Schüler et al., 2023), but don’t reflect an intrinsic enjoyment with the process. This was again expressed by participant 8, “I just consider myself a lifer. I’ll always be doing something because I enjoy it so much. It’s just a part of who I am and what I do.... I just love the grind...”

Consistent with SDT, this theme demonstrates how advanced handbalancers sustain motivation by fully internalising their practice. These accounts highlight how, although at times intrinsically motivated, devotion to the practice wasn’t dependent upon enjoying it. When necessary, autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation played a key role, demonstrating identity level integration. Practically, this theme suggests that in other domains of adult learning or performance, supporting individuals to move beyond external motives and toward full identity integration may foster the kind of devotion required for long-term mastery.

Theme 2: Embracing Discomfort

Across participants, a willingness to pursue difficulty and tolerate discomfort, both physical and psychological was embraced as a component of skill development. Rather than viewing discomfort as a barrier, various participants described leaning into the path of most resistance as a requirement for growth and a tool of mastery development. Participant 10 described:

“You’ve just gotta embrace the suck. It’ll suck because you hate it or it’ll suck because it’s physically tough or it’ll suck because you’re failing... Something’s gonna suck. You’ve just got to kind of embrace that...”

This voluntary engagement with difficulty reflects a reframing of “the suffering” (P9) as a positive signal of growth. Participant 1 explained:

“I have linked pain with growth. Because we constantly push pain and we know to lean into the path of most resistance to actually get somewhere. I think that’s what why ‘ cause, I know there’s so much value from pushing through pain.”

A mindset is revealed in which discomfort is not only expected but actively chosen. Such accounts reflect an orientation toward challenge as intrinsic to competence development, resonating with SDTs notion that the satisfaction of the need for competence often emerges through optimal challenge (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For these practitioners, competence was rarely achieved without sustained confrontation with some form of discomfort. Discomfort which became a vehicle for growth rather than a deterrence. At times, however, the drive to endure discomfort veered into extremes. One participant admitted to training until their (P11) “body physically gave up”, another mentioned (P9) “I didn’t take any time off until I felt my body was ruined”, whilst another recounted having (P10) “blacked out in training six or seven times” from overexertion. These narratives illustrate the fine line between productive perseverance and perceived optimal challenge and maladaptive overtraining, echoing discussions of obsessive passion (Vallerand et al., 2003). Nevertheless, in these accounts, there remained a reflective awareness of limits. Participants were conscious of their pushing of the limits, rather than acting recklessly without thought.

The pursuit of discomfort was consistently framed as self-determined, not externally imposed. This distinction is important. Within SDT, willingly chosen challenges support more resilient and internalised motivation compared with external pressures. Participant 8 illustrated how such challenges intersected with psychological growth, “Challenges that come up will be feelings of like, self-doubt... I’m not good enough... I’m not strong enough... But the tools that I can explore are the antithesis of all that.”

Here, discomfort functioned as a psychological mechanism for developing a tolerance of failure and self-doubt, echoing research on resilience and grit (Duckworth, 2007). Participant 4 described this shift succinctly: “I used to get angry and frustrated really quick… now I’m a calm person. The skill teaches you.” In these examples, discomfort functioned not as a physical sensation, but as a transformational psychological mechanism, supporting mindset development and a growing tolerance for ambiguity and failure.

In summary, this theme suggests that for advanced handbalancers, the deliberate embrace of discomfort is both a training method and a psychological resource. Through the selection of the path of most resistance, participants construct not only physical skill but a durable sense of identity, deepening their satisfaction of both competence and autonomy in the process. For applied practice, this suggests that environments which encourage challenge, not as a failure risk but as a meaningful component of growth, while also providing strategies for reflection may help sustain adaptive persistence and avoid maladaptive overtraining.

Theme 3: Shaped with Others, Sharpened Alone

The experience of relatedness in the journeys of these advanced practitioners emerged as multifaceted. Within the SDT framework, relatedness is understood as the need to feel connected to and valued by others, with its satisfaction often supporting both perceived competence and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This theme illustrates that relatedness in advanced handbalancers is not a binary presence or absence, but a dynamic factor that can be nurtured or redefined, depending on individual circumstances and motivations.

For some, community was instrumental. Participant 10 said he “probably wouldn’t have learned to one arm if it wasn’t for the community we have here”. This was echoed by participant 12 who shared that community was, “Really important. So, important” in her progress. Physical proximity to community was highlighted as key by participant 1, when she said, “then I was introduced to actual handstand gym, and that was that. I found the family; I found where I belong” and participant 6 had moved continent to place himself within a community of likeminded people. For others, physical community played a far less prominent role. For some this was because of geographical issues, “in [my country], there is no community for handbalancers” (P7) and for others, a preference for being alone was expressed, “I am a lone wolf in in many ways and I kind of enjoy it” (P9).

Regardless, a capacity to practice alone and find value in solo practice was considered by many as instrumental in their progress. The following are answers to question 8, “Do you often practice handbalancing with others, or do you tend to practice alone?”

“For the most part alone. Because I feel that’s where, like all the growth is gonna happen for me personally.... I do attribute my growth to being able to stay focused within a solo setting (P8).”

“I like to be alone and do it by myself. I think it’s like a meditation thing. And for me, when I train, it’s a moment for myself... (P2).”

“I practice alone. Even if there would be a community, I would still practise alone...When I look back, I’ve always had the most focus or being able to do my best stuff when I am alone (P5).”

These quotes align with Ericsson’s concept of deliberate practice in which mastery is obtained through longer periods of deliberate, solitary practice (Ericsson et al., 1993; Ericsson 2020). Furthermore, participants also described a self-reflective process of observation, analysis and adjustment. Participant 4 noted:

“If you really want to develop your skill, you need to spend the time alone. You need to practice alone. You need to observe and analyse yourself. And you cannot do that while you are talking.”

This reflects work on self-regulated learning (SRL, Zimmerman, 1986; 2002). SRL refers to the capacity of learners to monitor and manage their thoughts, behaviours, emotions, and motivation while working toward goals (McCardle et al., 2017) and has been linked to enhanced athletic performance (Wilson et al., 2021) and expertise development in sport (McCardle et al., 2017). In the absence of coaches, or structured systems, and given the extensive time investment required for mastery (Ericsson, 2020) advanced handbalancers appear to engage in SRL to support continued progression. In terms of SDT, autonomy emerges not only as freedom to practise alone, but as the active regulation and guidance of one’s own learning journey toward mastery.

While solitary training was seen as important for mastery development, community emerged as meaningful for many, demonstrating that the two are not mutually exclusive. For some, progress depended on access to physical communities, while for others, online spaces such as Instagram fulfilled the need for connection by offering visibility, validation, and belonging. This suggests that SDT’s construct of relatedness, while typically framed in terms of physical connection, may in fact be satisfied through more fluid and varied mechanisms, including digital spaces and internalised senses of belonging. Additionally, these accounts suggest that when autonomy is particularly strong, the role of relatedness may be more negotiable. While community was valued by some, others thrived in solitary practice, relying on self-regulation and identity-level integration. This may indicate that, in such contexts, autonomy can partly buffer lower relatedness satisfaction. SRL here may function as a mediating process, supporting autonomy and competence in solitary practice while allowing relatedness to be negotiated in more flexible ways. This highlights that relatedness may be less about physical co-presence than about perceived connection, reframing how SDT’s need for relatedness can be satisfied in solitary, self-directed practices.

Theme 4: Autonomy in Action

When asked the question, “How much autonomy have you had in your decision to pursue handbalancing?”, participants unanimously echoed participant 5’s response, “100% autonomy”. One participant explained, “I felt a lot of external pressure to not do it” (P3). As participants began handbalancing as adults, autonomy in their decision to practice was anticipated, yet its influence appears to extend beyond participation alone. Within SDT, autonomous behaviour reflects a sense of volition, self-endorsement, and agency (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This was often enacted through self-regulated learning (SRL, Zimmerman, 1986, 2002), where practice was sustained by actively planning, monitoring, evaluating and adjusting (McCardle et al., 2017). Autonomy here manifests as ownership of the process and proactive self-direction.

Participants often reframed failure as feedback, demonstrating a capacity to monitor, evaluate and adjust as outlined in SRL. For example:

I feel like I could always look at an attempt and be like, OK, what did I do wrong? Like, why did I fall...? Was it my focus? Was it like, not enough elevation? Was it, rushing? I’m always trying to analyse every attempt that I do (P9).

...what taught me a lot in terms of failure, is learning that from failure. OK, so I failed. Let’s try to think about why I fail in that last exercise...I’m trying to figure out what happened. OK, I’m falling but I learned that new detail, because of that fall...that’s part of learning (P3).

This aligns with Schunk and Zimmerman (1997), who posit that in later stages of development learning becomes increasingly guided by internal rather than social sources, with the learner focusing on process over outcomes. Here, SRL appears not only as a skill but as an expression of autonomy itself. Participants regulate through personal agency, rather than external direction. As participant 3 reflected, “frustration comes from the expectation...if you’re expecting just the final position, you will get frustrated. But if you divide the journey into different tiny steps. Then you will be much more confident.” These findings are consistent with research on expert skill acquisition in which advanced learners develop the capacity to self-direct and monitor progress without relying on guidance from social support (Charness et al., 2005). Beyond skill acquisition processes, some participants also emphasised the importance of affect regulation. As participant 10 explained,

“I just didn’t get too caught up in the downs of failure because it was just majority failure for such a long time. I just tried to find all the little successes I could...celebrating all those little wins along the way.”

This is echoed by participant 12:

“I remind myself of a quote ... “you actually learn a lot more from failures than from when you achieve something”. So yeah, whenever I have a shit day, I’m like, OK, your body takes something out of that.”

While experiences and individual differences varied, perceived autonomy consistently appeared as a central feature of practice. Together, these findings suggest that autonomy in advanced handbalancers extends beyond the decision to participate. It underpins the ability to transform failure into feedback and sustain progress through self-regulation. This resonates with the previous theme on solitary practice, indicating that SRL may be a key mechanism linking autonomy to mastery in this context. The implication here is that creating conditions that support autonomy, and foster the development of SRL skills, could help to sustain long-term engagement and progress in the absence of structured teaching, both in handbalancing and other domains of self-directed practice.

Theme 5: The process

Only a minority of participants articulated a real confidence in their abilities. Instead, many of the participants described handbalancing as a never-ending process of learning and refinement. A process in which competence was constantly re-negotiated. According to SDT, competence refers to a felt sense of confidence in one’s actions, and a capacity to effectively manage interactions with one’s environment (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Additionally, the satisfaction of competence can itself be a motivation for learning and achieving (Ryan & Moller, 2017).

For many participants, the sensation of incompetence was ever-present. Participant 10, reflected that he began with “no confidence in being capable” of success, and experienced handbalancing as “majority failure for such a long time.” Rather than discouraging him, this uncertainty appeared to fuel persistence, “I don’t like failure, but I like confronting it… if I had found handbalancing easier, I probably would have given it up” he went onto say, demonstrating that the process toward competence satisfaction, rather than competence satisfaction itself was key in his participation. The same sentiment was echoed by participant 11 “…when you feel like you understand a little bit, something new comes in... If I felt fully confident in everything I’m doing, I think I would get bored of it”.

Research has shown a correlation between low perceived competence and dropout rates (Crane & Temple, 2015; Jeno et al., 2018), as well as burn out in elite rugby players (Hodge et al., 2008), athletes (Li et al., 2013) and dancers (Quested & Duda, 2011). These studies illustrate a pattern: many drop out because they struggle to sustain motivation when competence wanes. SDT emphasises that competence is supported by tasks that are optimally challenging (Ryan et al., 2009). Yet optimal is defined vaguely and varies between individuals, depending on past experiences and individual differences. These accounts demonstrate that practitioners derive satisfaction from the challenge itself. This aligns with Cerasoli & Ford’s (2013) work on mastery goal orientation, where challenge and persistence are seen not as barriers but necessary conditions for growth. Through this lens, the absence of quick results is not demotivating and instead, the challenge itself becomes the motivator. As such, failure becomes an essential part of competence negotiation. An individual’s capacity to reframe, tolerate or find meaning in periods of perceived incompetence appears to be a key component in persistence and subsequently long-term mastery.

Participant 2 explained, “I had tolerance of falling a lot… I was confident in my process of falling...” before going on to explain how in tough moments she would zoom out to evaluate her progress over longer periods of time. This was echoed by participant 3:

“I won’t get results in one month, two months, three months... So, it’s more about setting up discipline in that and saying OK, I feel a stuck, it won’t be forever because I already experienced that before. I know that it’s like a roller coaster.”

This paradox highlights a key finding: advanced practitioners do not necessarily eliminate feelings of incompetence, but instead develop ways of confronting, reframing, and working with them.

Overall, these findings suggest that advanced handbalancers maintain engagement not through a continual sense of competence, but by managing and reinterpreting experiences of incompetence. Competence in this context is maintained through tolerance of failure, reframing of setbacks, and trust in the process. This aligns with work on mastery orientation (Diener & Dweck, 1978) which emphasises solution focused and forward-thinking responses to challenge rather than ruminating about or internalising failure, as well as seminal research on a growth mindset in which confidence is not a given but built over time with effort (Dweck & Molden, 2017). As participant 1 reflected, “I think you gain confidence through your persistence”. This implies that interventions to support perseverance in skill-based or performance contexts should encourage learners to emphasise process and patience as well as a tolerance for and reframing of failure. As competence satisfaction needs vary between individuals, interventions should help learners to identify and support their specific needs. Such strategies might help to sustain motivation and reduce drop out risk.

Share

Strengths

This is the first psychological study investigating the practice of handbalancing. It is also the first study to apply SDT to advanced practitioners that learnt as adults, in an underexplored, non-competitive and self-directed physical practice. Subsequently, it extends SDT into a non-traditional setting where orthodox structures are absent. Twelve in depth interviews, across diverse cultural and training contexts provided rich and extensive insights into the lived experiences and meaning making processes of each participant. This study offers practical implications and insights that may be transferable to other contexts of adult learning and mastery development. For example, coaches and practitioners are encouraged to recognise that competence satisfaction needs might vary between individuals, and to work collaboratively with learners to identify and support these needs in ways that sustain motivation and prevent dropout.

Limitations

Given both the time and financial constraints of this research project, no second coder or expert-by-experience was involved in the development process. This is acknowledged as a limitation, as multiple coders or contributors can enrich the analysis by offering alternative perspectives and challenging assumptions in a reflexive manner (Byrne, 2022). The absence of participant validation and checks on credibility is also recognised as a limitation of this study (Mays & Pope, 2000). Participants were purposively sampled from social media platform Instagram, excluding any participants that do not engage with the platform. It is possible that motivational profiles here might vary and that those without social media could have offered an alternative perspective. As a researcher with insider status and known prior to the interviews by many of the participants, it must be acknowledged that participants could have been influenced in their responses. As with qualitative research, findings are not statistically generalisable. However, they may be transferable to similar self-directed contexts of skill acquisition where traditional structures are absent.

Implications

Coaches and practitioners can foster persistence by encouraging learners to value patience, incremental progress and the process itself rather than focusing solely on outcomes. A capacity to reframe failure, tolerate setbacks, welcome challenge, and cultivate a real joy from the process appear to sustain long term commitment and mastery orientation. Coaches and practitioners are encouraged to recognise that competence needs and optimal challenge vary between individuals, and to work collaboratively with learners to identify and support these to sustain motivation and prevent dropout. An orientation towards SRL and integration of its strategies appears to be of great importance. Finally, social media’s role in satisfying the relatedness need could be leveraged to sustain engagement in locations where community is either small or non-existent.

Findings extend and refine SDT by suggesting that in highly autonomous learners, relatedness satisfaction may be less critical for persistence than typically assumed. Competence emerged not as a stable state but as an ongoing negotiation, highlighting the value of examining competence dynamically across time rather than as a fixed perception. These findings highlight how SRL interacts with the broader motivational processes outlined in SDT, functioning as a mechanism that helps sustain persistence and mastery in self-directed practices.

Future Research

Further studies could examine and compare participants that discontinue practice compared with those that continue and their motivational profiles. Focusing on basic psychological need satisfaction, self-determined motivation and SRL strategies to identify risk markers for disengagement. Future studies could also examine whether high autonomy functions as a buffer for low relatedness satisfaction, clarifying the interplay between these needs in sustaining persistence. Additionally, research could also examine the role of social media and its capacity to work as a legit mechanism of relatedness satisfaction. Finally, integration and identification of the practice have been touched on here but an analysis of this and its darker side would be an interesting and valuable avenue to explore.

Conclusion

This study explored how advanced adult handbalancers maintain motivation and achieve mastery in a self-directed, non-competitive physical discipline. This was achieved through exploration of the practitioners’ experiences and motivations and their meaning making of the two. Through reflexive thematic analysis five themes were generated: A Deep Devotion, Embracing Discomfort, Shaped with Others, Sharpened Alone, Autonomy in Action and The Process. These themes contribute to the research questions by offering a nuanced account of how motivation and the basic psychological needs outlined in SDT manifest in the pursuit of mastery.

Results reveal that practitioners were high in autonomous motivation, demonstrating both integrated regulation and intrinsic motivations, and had frequently integrated the practice into their self-concept. Practitioners across the sample were high in perceived autonomy. Across cases, strong perceived autonomy, often enacted via SRL appeared to sustain engagement despite fluctuating competence experiences. Competence emerged not as a stable sense of effectiveness, but as an ongoing negotiation sustained by tolerance for failure, regular reframing and a trust in the process. Relatedness was experienced in more varied and nuanced ways, depending on individual preference and geographical location. Another interpretative finding is the possibility that, in highly autonomous learners, the satisfaction of relatedness may be less critical than traditionally assumed within SDT, a finding that warrants further exploration.

To conclude, this study has demonstrated that the role of self-determination and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in achieving mastery in handbalancing is central yet multifaceted. This study contributes to an understanding of how adults sustain long term engagement and reach mastery in physically demanding non-institutionalised practices.

Share

Additional Notes:

Some formatting edits have been made as a result of layout differences on Substack. For the whole dissertation with tables & appendices included please contact the researcher.

References

Almagro, B. J., Sáenz-López, P., Moreno-Murcia, J. A., & Spray, C. (2015). Motivational factors in young Spanish athletes: A qualitative focus drawing from self-determination theory and achievement goal perspectives. The Sport Psychologist, 29(1), 15–28.

Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (2004). Long-term athlete development: Trainability in childhood and adolescence. Olympic Coach, 16(1), 4–9.

Bean, C., Solstad, B. E., Ivarsson, A., & Forneris, T. (2018). Longitudinal associations between perceived programme quality, basic needs support and basic needs satisfaction within youth sport: A person-centred approach. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2018.1462234

Bentzen, M., Lemyre, P. N., & Kenttä, G. (2014). The process of burnout among professional sport coaches through the lens of self-determination theory: A qualitative approach. Sports Coaching Review, 3(2), 101–116.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and being a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6.

Breen, L. J. (2007). The researcher ‘in the middle’: Negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), 163-174.

Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412.

Cerasoli, C. P., & Ford, M. T. (2013). Intrinsic motivation, performance, and the mediating role of mastery goal orientation: A test of self-determination theory. The Journal of Psychology, 148(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.78377822

Charness, N., TuYiash, M., Krampe, R. T., Reingold, E., & Vasyukova, E. (2005). The role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 151–165.

Crane, J., & Temple, V. (2015). A systematic review of dropout from organized sport among children and youth. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 3–18.

Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

De Cruz, N. P., & Duncombe, R. (2016). Qualitative Inquiry of the Singapore environment and motivation of elite athletes: A self-determination perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Sport and Social Science, 5(3), 244–262.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321.

Diekfuss, J. A., Hogg, J. A., Grooms, D. R., Slutsky-Ganesh, A. B., Singh, H., Bonnette, S., ... & Myer, G. D. (2020). Can we capitalize on central nervous system plasticity in young athletes to inoculate against injury? Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise, 2(4), 305–318.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 451–462.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101.

Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2017). Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition.In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 135–154). Guilford Press.

Ericsson, K. A. (2020). Towards a science of the acquisition of expert performance in sports: Clarifying the diYerences between deliberate practice and other types of practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(2), 159–176.23

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

Fraser, N. (2025, January 13). Could a handstand be your path to joy? Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/b2e5bf59-e354-47fc-8735-21051e2586ee

Frøyen, A. F., & Pensgaard, A. M. (2014). Antecedents of need fulfillment among elite athletes and coaches: A qualitative approach. International Journal of Applied sports sciences (IJASS), 26(1), 26-41

Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1-13.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 (Original work published 2006)

Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C., & Ng, J. Y. (2008). Burnout in elite rugby: Relationships with basic psychological needs fulfilment. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(8), 835–844.

Jeno, L. M., Danielsen, A. G., & Raaheim, A. (2018). A prospective investigation of students’ academic achievement and dropout in higher education: A self-determination theory approach. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1163–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1502412

Kalia, A. (2019, July 23). In over your head: How to master Instagram’s favourite pose – the headstand. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2019/jul/23/in-over-your-head-how-to-master-instagrams-favourite-pose-the-headstand.

Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A qualitative investigation of the motivational climate in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(1), 97–107.

Kliethermes, S. A., Marshall, S. W., LaBella, C. R., Watson, A. M., Brenner, J. S., Nagle, K. B., ... & Beutler, A. I. (2021). Defining a research agenda for youth sport specialisation in the USA: The AMSSM Youth Early Sport Specialization Summit. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(3), 135–143.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). Cambridge Books.

Li, C., Wang, C. K. J., Pyun, D. Y., & Kee, Y. H. (2013). Relationships between self-determined motivation and burnout among athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 692–700.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50–52.

McCardle, L., Young, B. W., & Baker, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning and expertise development in sport: Current status, challenges, and future opportunities. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1381141.

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Mastery, n. In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved August 19, 2025, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mastery_n?tab=meaning_and_use#37763193.

Quested, E., & Duda, J. L. (2010). Exploring the social–environmental determinants of well- and ill-being in dancers: A test of basic needs theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(1), 39–60.

Quested, E., & Duda, J. L. (2011). Antecedents of burnout among elite dancers: A longitudinal test of basic needs theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(2), 159–167.

Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28(3), 297–313.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.25.

Ryan, R. M., Duineveld, J. J., Di Domenico, S. I., Ryan, W. S., Steward, B. A., & Bradshaw, E. L. (2022). We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: A meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory. Psychological Bulletin, 148(11–12), 813–845.

Ryan, R. M., & Moller, A. C. (2017). Competence as central, but not sufficient, for high-quality motivation. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 216–238). Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., Williams, G. C., Patrick, H., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Self-determination theory and physical activity: The dynamics of motivation in development and wellness. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 107–124.

Salikhova, N. R., Lynch, M. F., & Salikhova, A. B. (2021). Basic psychological needs satisfaction and frustration in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 704593.

Schüler, J., WolY, W., & Duda, J. L. (2023). Intrinsic motivation in the context of sports. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology: Theory and application (pp.171–192). Springer International Publishing.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208.

Standage, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2020). Self-determination theory in sport and exercise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed., pp. 37–56). Wiley.

Stenling, A., Lindwall, M., & Hassmén, P. (2015). Changes in perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in young elite athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(1), 50–61.

Tang, M., Wang, D., & Guerrien, A. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis on basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in later life: Contributions of self-determination theory. PsyCh Journal, 9(1), 5–33.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.26.

Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756–767.

White, R. L., Bennie, A., Vasconcellos, D., Cinelli, R., Hilland, T., Owen, K. B., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Self-determination theory in physical education: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, 103247.

Wilson, S. G., Young, B. W., Hoar, S., & Baker, J. (2021). Further evidence for the validity of a survey for self-regulated learning in sport practice. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56, 101975.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

As it turns out, fear-based fitness content isn’t random. It follows well-studied psychological mechanisms. Being able to discern between good information and bad information means understanding not just what is being said, but how it is being communicated and why. Millions of pounds are spent each year on marketing psychology, learning to understand how to manipulate your (often unconscious) impulses, vulnerabilities and biases. If you want to make informed decisions and be in control its worth understanding the mechanisms through which these function.

Why does this type of content grab attention so well?

Humans are hardwired to detect threat. In psychology we call this the negativity bias. Humans tend to be biased towards negative or threatening information. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense. Miss positive or neutral information and it might be a shame but miss a threat and it could be death. Thus, unconsciously we pay more attention to threat stimuli.

How does this content work?

Fear-fitness content is engineered to inflate perceived threat. If I can convince you of a threat, then I can catch your attention and sell you the cure. For something to be perceived as threatening two things are important. Severity (how bad is this?) and susceptibility (does this apply to me?). If we evaluate high severity and high susceptibility, threat detection systems go off.

Inflating severity

Severity is exaggerated through language and imagery. Absolute terms (Sitting IS destroying your posture / squatting IS bad) function as a powerful mechanism here, often simplifying complex realities into emotionally compelling claims of certainty. Research consistently shows that we prefer the comfort of certainty over complex ambiguity. Other mechanisms include irreversible outcomes (‘X’ is wearing your joints away), medical or scientific language (anterior pelvic tilt / impingement / misalignment) and selective visual proof (X-Rays / MRIs / Slow motion videos etc). These all serve to increase perceived severity.

Maximising susceptibility

This type of content feels personal to you because the message is designed to remove context and nuance. Rather than saying, “in some people, under some circumstances…” videos say, YOUR squatting is damaging/ YOUR knees are fucked /walking like that will ruin YOUR spine. This framing increases personal relevance and prevents psychological distancing. “I squat, sometimes I do feel my knees… this must apply to me”. By drawing on universally recognisable movements and sensations such as sitting, phone use, back discomfort and hip tightness, the content ensures broad applicability.

Why does this work so well?

The above are ambiguous experiences that we all share. Which is exactly what is necessary so that a meaning (threat) can then be attached onto the experience. Low energy availability is a risk factor for injury, so are sudden increases in training load or prior injury, all variables more likely to predispose you to injury than squatting or looking at your phone, yet you don’t see videos warning of training when at low energy or after prior injury. These are too abstract, not visually demonstrable and don’t hook a mass audience. Additional influence comes from perceived authority. Authority amplifies perceived severity. If a professional, or someone in a white coat , or someone with a million followers says it, it must be true…right?

Ambiguous sensations and threat information.

Exercise involves effort, strain, fatigue, joint sensations and soreness, again, all ambiguous sensations. One of the reasons I’m such an advocate for exercise or movement in any form is that through experience you get to know and understand your body and different sensations. Without this experience it’s often very difficult to distinguish between normal adaptions and genuine problems. Messaging based on fear encourages a threat interpretation of these sensations and can even act as a primer for them. If you have no other blueprint to work with you might easily confuse muscular sensations in your lower back for lower back pain or DOMS around the knee for a worn knee on the edge of destruction.

Consequences?

Fear, exercise anxiety and avoidance all increase. For many people avoidance feels protective, “exercise leads to injury, so I won’t exercise”. However, avoidance can reduce confidence, resilience, and physical preparedness, paradoxically increasing vulnerability to injury rather than reducing it. This effect is amplified in individuals who experience health related anxiety or have some pre-existing beliefs with which the message fits i.e. “my body is fragile”. Research shows that fear of movement is one of the strongest predictors of activity avoidance and can be more predictive of activity avoidance than pain itself.

In a world in which 30% of the population is physically inactive and 43% of adults are overweight - a number that has increased from 25% over the last 30 years - the way we talk about our bodies and exercise matters. Yet, we live in an environment saturated with messages telling us what’s wrong with our bodies and how fragile they are. Fear-based fitness content positions itself as help - as exactly what YOU need - but more often it erodes confidence and trust in the body. That doesn’t meean no one has ever benefited from it, some undoubtedly have. But at scale it shifts the lens through which we view the human body toward one that emphasises caution, avoidance, and fragility.

How fragile are we?

When we review science and history, a different picture is painted. The human body is incredibly adaptive. It is the project and result of millions of years of spectacular evolution. Human bodies have ran continents and swam oceans. They have the capacity to lift cars, contort into pretzels and can survive in temperatures as low as -70 degrees. In the right conditions bones repair themselves, muscles grow stronger and disease is fought off. The eyes with which you are reading this, or more specifically the cornea, the outer layer of the eye, can repair itself after a minor scratch in just a day or two. The machine through which you are experiencing the world is one of the most impressive, if not the most impressive, creation ever.

Content that relies on fear may be effective for clicks and conversions, but effectiveness does not equal care or utility. Learning to recognise these mechanisms is one small step toward reclaiming agency over how we understand our bodies.

Perfectionism is broadly understood as the pursuit of extraordinarily high personal standards coupled with a tendency for harsh self-critical evaluation. Historically considered neurotic, dysfunctional and suggestive of psychopathology, perfectionism was once regarded as an unhealthy striving that undermined wellbeing. It was only in the early 1990s that research widely recognised perfectionism as a multidimensional concept. Prior to this perfectionism wasn’t considered to have any adaptive or beneficial nature. Thus, scientifically perfectionism was split into various dimensions, which have since been further grouped into two higher order dimensions - perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Perfectionistic strivings refers to the pursuit of exceptionally high personal standards. Perfectionistic concerns refer to the tendency to experience extreme self-criticism. Two sides of the same coin. One strives for perfection, achievement and success, while the other fears failure, is overly self-critical and is hyper concerned with the judgement of others. Whilst research has attempted to prize the two dimensions apart in an attempt to find a purely adaptive perfectionism, the two have shown to be positively correlated time and time again. Rarely do you get one without the other.

Perfectionism in sport and performance is often celebrated and revered. It means being meticulous about the details. Going the extra mile. Caring more than your peers or opponents. These can all be wonderfully beneficial. Yet, less frequently do we consider its darker side. A significant amount of research links perfectionism with a range of devastating outcomes such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, social disconnection, burn-out and suicide ideation. Perfectionism has the capacity to be profoundly destructive.

Subscribe now

I would like to dissect in little more depth two aspects of perfectionism that I consider relevant to most of us doing something we love, or for that matter, trying to find love in what we’re doing. First, perfectionism is linked to burnout and disengagement. If longevity and sustainability are important to you in what you’re doing perfectionism can end up being heavily counterproductive. Mastery is a process of iteration. A process of trying, failing, learning and trying again. The more positive this relationship, the more likely you are to stay the course. Perfectionism and self-criticism might be short term motivators, but they will do very little for a long, fulfilled and healthy relationship with yourself, your practice or your body.

Secondly, perfectionism tends to be negatively correlated with creativity. Some of the most joyful moments I’ve experienced have been those of great personal creativity. Psychological flexibility, openness to experience, tolerance of mistakes, flow and divergent thinking are all characteristics of highly creative people. Creativity inherently involves uncertainty, mistakes and potential failure. All things considered anathema by the perfectionist, who instead is characterised by rigid thinking and an intolerance for ambiguity. Creativity spotlights curiosity. Perfectionism, caution. For anyone wanting to be more creative, or struggling to create, working to shed the skin of perfectionism can be a vital step forward.

A confrontation with perfectionism is no easy task. Perfectionists often value their perfectionism, seeing it as integral to any success they might have had and as such as are rarely forthcoming regarding its deconstruction. They also perceive seeking support as a sign of weakness, leading to the avoidance of help-seeking behaviours. This can be particularly debilitating and insidious. We are social creatures and have a long and rich history of social learning. You were not born with the information you have now. Someone or something taught you it. Rarely are the tools that got you into a situation the same tools that are needed to get out of that situation. New tools are necessary, and they only ever come from external inputs.

So what?

An alternative to perfectionism has recently been explored in research - excellencism. Excellencism refers to the pursuit of excellence without the rigid and self-critical darker side of perfectionism. It represents a much more flexible and adaptive striving guided by growth and mastery. Not success as a means of external validation. It is about doing the best you can do. Which, at the end of the day, is all you can do. The research on excellencism as an alternative to perfectionism is new but promising.

Interestingly, self-compassion (see last month’s newsletter) directly targets core features of perfectionism such as shame and self-criticism and works to cultivate more adaptive responses to set-backs and failures. Self-compassion aims to focus on growth and learning from errors rather than the internalization of them into one’s self-concept and has shown promising results.

Together, excellencism and self-compassion appear to be valuable tools to explore when it comes to constructing a safer, healthier and more fulfilling experience whether it be with yourself, your practice or your body. Confronting perfectionism isn’t about lowering our standards and settling for less. Instead, it’s about changing the way we relate to our standards. If we want our journeys to be characterised by creativity, play, presence, growth and fulfilment - striving not for perfection, but for excellence might be the smart way to go.

Share

That’s not my thing. I shall not be looking to the magical moon on the first Thursday of Aries to hope that life treats me with more kindness. Instead, I’ll be working, confronting some discomfort, growing. You can take your hippy woowoo elsewhere. Thank you very much.

For a long time, I thought that my lack of self-compassion was my superpower. I was able to push myself harder, endure more and suffer for longer than many of my peers. I had attributed much of my progress to my capacity to self-criticize. This mentality helped me on the road to achieving some objectively difficult physical feats. That’s not to say I haven’t loved the process. But my allergy to self-compassion has meant that at times I’ve been reluctant to credit myself for hard work, celebrate wins, or gift myself grace when things haven’t gone my way. This journey has been full of flow, fire and passion. It’s also been, at times, tiresome. A lack of self-compassion has been positively correlated with self-criticism and negative self-talk. Self-criticism and negative self-talk have been fuel to the fire that has moved me along more than I might like to admit. In truth, my exploration into psychology began in a desperate attempt to find momentary refuge from this critical inner dialogue.

My therapist recently recommended me a book rather appropriately titled, “Self-Compassion”. My instinct reaction was to cringe and I laughed awkwardly. “Not a chance”, I thought. Despite my bodies visceral rejection to the suggestion, I said I would commit to the process and lean into the cringe. Subsequently, I want to explore the literature on self-compassion and performance and see what the science says. Is it worth my time? Does self-compassion help or hinder performance? For a long time, I would have said that naturally, it hinders it. Self-criticism is what drives improvement. Have I been wrong all along?

What actually is self-compassion?

According to the literature, self-compassion is about treating oneself with kindness. It’s about recognizing a shared humanity; understanding that being flawed and fucked are a part of our shared human experience. Additionally, it involves a component of mindfulness, being aware of what is happening, the pleasant and the less pleasant, without judgement. Self-compassion is not self-pity; it doesn’t mean ‘poor me’. It’s also not self-indulgence; it doesn’t mean I’ll allow myself sit on the sofa all day and consume chocolate until I’m sent into a deep serotonin snooze. My worry for a long time was that being too kind to myself would deter me from challenging myself. However, self-compassion appears to be more about supporting yourself as you would support a friend. I wouldn’t dream of attempting to motivate my friends the way I’ve often tried to push myself. I imagine many of you reading this would agree.

OK, so treating oneself like a friend. That I can get onboard with. Let’s continue.

Research.

To date, a wealth of research into the relationship between self-compassion and wellbeing has been done. Work has linked self-compassion to lower levels of depression and shame. Research in 2007 linked self-compassion to curiosity, optimism, conscientiousness and a greater desire to develop as a person. A 2015 metaanalysis of 79 studies provided evidence for a causal relationship between the two; improving self-compassion positively benefits wellbeing. There doesn’t appear to be a great deal of dispute. If you’re interested in psychological wellbeing, self-compassion is likely something worth cultivating. Yet, the question I wanted to explore focuses more explicitly on performance. What does self-compassion do for performance?

Interestingly, as I read through studies and articles a fear of self-compassion leading to mediocrity presents quite frequently; in athletes (athletes again) and gymnasts to give a few examples. There appears to be a common popular conception that mental toughness, grit and a drive to improve naturally oppose self-compassion. Have you felt this way?

In their study, Applying Self-Compassion in Sport: An intervention in Women Athletes, authors found that self-compassion linked to decreased rumination, self-criticism and fear of failure. For those familiar with research on optimal flow states, all the above contribute to one’s capacity to access such states and therefore, I would argue, directly relate to performance. In my case, rumination and fear of failure often drive me into a deep anxiety that forces me out of the present moment and distracts me from any training I might be attempting to get lost in. Interestingly, a 2020 study explored this connection and found that in elite athletes’ higher levels of self-compassion would predict increased levels of flow and decreased levels of performance anxiety. Finally, a 2021 randomised control trial explored whether self-compassion might decrease performance and cognitive anxiety in climbers. The study concluded that self-compassion led to a decrease in somatic performance anxiety e.g. sweaty hands or an increase in heart rate, helping to manage physiological arousal, compared to the control group.

Given that in high performance settings setbacks are an inevitable part of the process, coping strategies to manage these are important to develop. Infact, much research has demonstrated that optimal functioning in high level sport is dependent on an ability to cope with setbacks and stress. In one study, athletes higher in self-compassion responded in heathier ways to emotionally difficult situations compared to their less self-compassionate counterparts. In their work, “Managing injury and other setbacks in sport...” authors recommend self-compassion as a coping strategy for the inevitable tough times of high performance. In work on academics, authors found self-compassion linked to mastery goals and that more self-compassionate individuals are more inclined to see failure experiences as opportunities to learn and grow.

Share

Blimey... I was wrong.

It appears the ability to take the path of most resistance and the ability to practice self-compassion are not in opposition; and in fact, they might even complement each other. I’m interested in performance. I’m interested in flow. I would prefer not to suffer from anxiety. I’m interested in mastery goals and growing and learning. So, [gulp] I suppose I’ll give my therapist the benefit of the doubt and give this self-compassion thing a go. Will you join me? Small steps to start. Trite it may be, but being conscious of talking to yourself, treating yourself and encouraging yourself as you would a best friend appears to be a wonderful place to begin.

Subscribe now

Of all the ideas I’ve encountered this year, the construct of competence has been one that has really captured my attention. Competence refers to a felt sense of confidence in one's actions, and a capacity to effectively manage interactions with one's environment. There’s been a wealth of research on the construct and its importance in psychological wellbeing. We want to feel competent, and when we feel competent, we feel much better about ourselves.

Additionally, competence functions as a determinant of motivation. If we invest in something, we want to see or feel progress. There’s a reason proximal (close) goals drive immediate action and persistence more effectively than distal (distant) goals. We want to feel competent, now. How many times have you given something up because you didn’t see improvement (lacked a sense of competence)? In my mid 20s I took dance classes regularly for a year or so. Week after week I failed to remember the steps or maintain much fluidity. I would watch my classmates in awe, gliding and moon dancing around, whilst I felt like an amnesiac tin man, frequently confusing my left and rights and generally struggling to know what was going on. In the end, my competence took a beating. I haven’t taken a dance class in years.

Research has shown a correlation between low perceived competence and activity dropout rates, as well as burn out in elite rugby players, athletes and dancers. These studies illustrate a pattern: many drop out or lose interest because they struggle to sustain motivation when competence wanes. The implications of this are significant. An investment in maintaining a sense of competence is one of the most powerful things we can do when working towards our goals and for our psychological wellbeing. Often, although not always, the two go hand in hand.

Subscribe now

A sense of competence is supported by tasks that are optimally challenging. Theoretically, this means a challenge somewhere between what you’re capable of now and what lies just beyond your current capabilities. Optimally challenging, however sexy it may sound, is in practice difficult to define and varies between individuals, depending on past experiences and individual differences. This is why cookie cutter programs produced en mass don’t tend to work - not because the exercises are not ‘good’ exercises but because what is optimally challenging for one person can be very different to another person. Too easy and we get bored and disengage. Too hard and we feel incompetent and disengage. For some, optimal challenge looks like an opera cake; several delicate layers of almond sponge, coffee buttercream and chocolate ganache, each layer baked, set and assembled with total precision. For others, it looks like a microwave mug cake. There is no right or wrong, the key is finding the right recipe for you.

Finding your level of optimal challenge requires practice. It requires failure. It requires a confrontation with feelings of incompetence. How well do you deal with these? Do failure and difficulty motivate you to push harder? Keep the level of challenge high. You don’t deal with failure well and find it deeply demotivating? Bring down the demands significantly and break the process into smaller portions. This requires an honest investigation into oneself. This is, in part why a physical practice and an engagement with the process are so powerful. How well do you really know yourself? A deep dive into the process is a deep dive into the self. However, we’ll sideline that for another day.

The next time you start to feel that motivation begins to wane, ask yourself, how are you experiencing competence? Is what you're doing too easy, or too hard? If the goal is important then these variables can be manipulated appropriately to bring you back to optimal challenge and keep you on track. This appears to be one of the most powerful motivational tools we have at our disposal, and yet we barely talk about it.

PS. the beautiful thing about competence is that it functions as psychological construct across different contexts. I’ve spoken about goal achievement and wellness here, however it's also an important aspect of relationship satisfaction, satisfaction at work and so on. We want to feel interpersonally competent. In relationships, whether they be intimate or familiar, we want to feel like we are able to contribute and effectively manage. Relationships that thrive, are ones in which each participant feels competent in their role. “I am a good [friend/spouse/brother]”. That unfortunate relationship in which one, or both people relentlessly tell the other how useless they are, regardless of the motivation behind it, is likely doomed, either to failure or misery. Why? It’s a fast-track way to destroy someone's sense of competence and lead to feelings of frustration, disconnection and demotivation.

Whether in the gym, at work, or in love our sense of competence shapes whether we show up and how we show up. Nurturing this sense of competence in yourself and those around you, may be one of the best tools you have to maintain motivation and boost wellness.

Share Harry’s Substack

When we human beings are confronted by hard or uncomfortable, the mind is brilliant at coming up with stories to underhandedly abort mission and get us the hell out of there. And it's so ingenious that rarely are we aware of it.

“This shouldn’t be so hard. It must be...”

We have a wonderful tendency to attribute the problem to something outside of ourselves. A bad workman might blame his tools (or partner, or lack of sleep, we could add).

With the discomfort of recognising personal shortcomings averted, self-image preserved, and the ego protected, we are able to keep on keeping on. It’s an ingeniously adaptive response.

Until of course, it isn’t.

Subscribe now

Common attributions

Here are some of the most common attributions:

1. External Factors, e.g. lack of time, money, equipment etc.

The classics. Not having enough time, money or equipment might be valid concerns but are often cover stories for discomfort or avoidance. Rarely are they sufficient justifications. Admitting that forces us to face uncomfortable truths and reevaluate our self-image, particularly if it’s not congruent with our values.

Let me give a personal example. I avoided therapy for ages because, well, it's expensive. And that’s not untrue. It is expensive. But I have the resources. I always had the resources. Simply, I wasn’t ready. Therapy can be uncomfortable. There might be other perspectives, but I feel rather comfortable with mine, thank you very much.

2. Other people.

“I can’t do it because I haven’t been helped the right way.”

“I’m angry because you never listen to me, you don’t care about my feelings and, that’s the reason we keep fighting.”

These attributions are sinister on multiple fronts, as not only do we externalise blame, but we also surrender agency. Now, it’s not to say that your partner always listens to you, perhaps they don’t. And it’s not to say that they are not responsible for some of this hypothetical emotional upheaval, perhaps they are. But, in any relationship, whether it be an intimate one or a professional one, it takes two to tango. The power to change, avoid repeating the same pattern, and make progress lies in recognising our role in the dance. It’s there, if you’re willing to look.

3. Personal Inadequacy.

This is one that appears all the time in physical practices, and one that you’ve undoubtedly encountered at some point if you’ve got deep enough into whatever your craft might be. It can sound something like, “maybe there is something about me that means I’m different / can’t do it…”

“I can’t handstand because my hips are uneven,” or “I’m not flexible.”

What makes this attribution especially tricky is that it comes from within - it’s our belief - but it feels fixed, like it’s outside of our control. It doesn’t blame anyone else, but it still lets us off the hook. It quietly closes the door to growth by presenting the limitation as inherent, rather than psychological or changeable.

The cost of self-protection

All these stories serve the purpose of externalising the subject of the issue and giving us a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the issue lies outside of us, so must the solution. Now we have a reason to walk away. Wonderfully adaptive. Terribly restricting.

If left unchecked, these defences become limitations, holding us back from experiencing meaningful growth and fuelling repetition. Nobody wants to fail or feel inadequate, yet this protective mechanism comes with a significant trade-off.

Our attribution patterns are shaped by a lifetime of experiences, biases and beliefs. They form the mental program that drives us. Fortunately, we are also the programmers in this equation and have the power to override the system.

Active Programming

System override starts with taking responsibility. When we own our role in a situation, we create space to reflect, adapt, shift course and develop resilience. Radical accountability. We refocus on what’s within our control and reinforce that we are agents, not passive objects in the world.

Resilience and adaptability are muscles. They grow not by avoiding discomfort, but by engaging with it and taking responsibility for the part we have played in its orchestration.

Now what?

Next time you catch yourself attributing a failure or a moment of emotional disturbance to some distant external force to which the only possible solution would be to throw your arms up in the air, curse the unfairness of the world before walking away - take a moment and pause. Consider if another explanation might exist. What role have you played in this opera? Discomfort is good, breathe and lean into it. That moment of awareness might just be the moment you stop reciting the old script and start writing a new one.

Share

Subscribe now

In a culture that promotes speed, convenience and instant gratification, the handstand stands still. Here I’m going to argue that handbalancing isn’t just a physical skill, it’s a quiet rebellion against everything fast, convenient and automated.

No shortcuts.

I learnt embarrassingly late in life that beetroot isn’t plucked from the soil, washed, packaged up and sold to us. There is a process of boiling and peeling first to make the vegetable more palatable. Underboiled beetroots are hard and earthy. Overboiled beetroots are soft and mushy. There’s a fine margin. The process is inconvenient and so it’s been taken off our hands, at least here in the West. In 2025 we can buy ready-made pretty much anything. The dicing of butternut squash is apparently problematic here in Spain and so pre-cut butternut squash occupies its own space on supermarket shelves. Convenience is such that we forget a process even exists.

To become fluent in a foreign language (particularly if like me, you’re British) takes many years. On average it takes 8-12 years of practice to become a black belt in Brazilian jiujitsu.

When it comes to handstands the process of learning can be slow, ego deflating and at times, impossible to understand.

You can’t Chat GPT your way into a handstand. You can’t ask someone else to step in and do the work once it gets challenging. The process won’t do its best to be convenient for you. You are going to fall. It is going to be slower than you think. At times it won’t make sense - and nobody can dice the metaphorical butternut squash for you.

Deep attention

Google, TikTok and Facebook have all published data that demonstrates we will give a piece of content between 0.25-3 seconds before deciding whether to disregard it or not. Multibillion dollar machines that understand human psychology far better than most of us are constantly working to capture our attention, to the extent that less and less in life we experience deep attention, deep focus or flow.

Einstein, when learning to golf (unfortunately he didn’t handbalance) and after being given multiple cues, remarked something along the lines of “when I throw you one ball, you catch it. But, when I throw you four balls, you catch nothing! So, when you teach, make only one point at a time!"

The handstand is a complex beast. When learning there are always multiple variables that can each require some degree of attention. You focus on your hips, you lose your shoulders. You focus on your shoulders you lose your hips. Anyone that has learnt will know what I’m talking about. We task switch between the shoulders and the hips and chaos ensues. Development inherently happens at the edge of capacity, and to do it well demands full cognitive engagement. Deep attention. This is crucial for progress, and the more you’re able to pay attention the more effective learning will be. You cannot be upside down, trying to push your limits and be thinking about the argument you had with your partner yesterday or what you might like for dinner tonight. It won’t happen.

Persistence & Repetition

Historically, religion understood repetition as a direct route to the sacred. Repetition of the reading of holy scripture, of rituals and prayer were and are all transcendent ways to connect with God. Popes, Imams, Rabiis and Swamis – the venerable of society - achieved their status through years of repeated practice.

Now, as an Atheist, I’m not about to suggest that we all nip down the local religious centre to sign up, but I do think there is real power and a route to God - God, in this case, being a metaphor for what we value most deeply - through repetition. You cannot progress in handstands without it. Unless you make handstands your morning prayer it’s going to be a tough ride. The best of the best are those that have integrated the ritual into their routine.

Patience

The propensity of a person to wait calmly in the face of frustration, adversity, or suffering.

Although easy to forget, situations that require patience are fundamental to the human experience. A 2012 study concluded that patience is central to wellbeing and success. Interestingly, they also found that, “patient people pursue goals with more effort than less patient people.” Consequentially those with more patience were more likely to reach their goals and as a result demonstrate higher levels of wellbeing.

The fundamental lesson of handbalancing is precisely one of patience. A handstand is a construction, and like all constructions it takes time. You have to build it. No matter how badly you might want it right now, no matter how much you might will it into existence, you can only experience in this moment the fruits of the seeds you have previously sewn.

One of the reasons many people fail to learn the one arm handstand is that they prematurely lift the free hand before having laid the appropriate foundation. Effectively hoping and praying to experience the magic.

It’s no long-term plan for success. Frustration ensues, and we become seduced by something with a stronger dopamine hit. Hasta luego handstands.

The more we can resist the temptation, the more patient we can be, the faster the foundation is laid and the sooner the process will grant those beautiful moments. Go slow to go fast. Simple - but in today’s world, an undeniably difficult lesson to learn.

Counterculture?

In a culture obsessed with shortcuts, handbalancing offers none. And that’s precisely the point.

It's not just a skill. It’s a discipline, a metaphor, a rebellion. It demands that we slow down, pay attention, stay patient, and return to the scripture again and again - until repetition becomes ritual, and ritual becomes art.

Subscribe now

I couldn’t resist but to begin with this Philip Larkin quote. Poignant. I’m fucked, your fucked, statistically speaking we’re all fucked (it comes free with existing) and there’s no better way to bond than to embrace and revel in our fucked-ness together.

Thank you for being here.

2. Lets jump into things. Why this, why now?

In 2022, after six years, the relationship I was in ended. It was a dark moment and I really struggled. At a crossroads, I asked myself : What does a millennial movement coach with a manbun do when life hits hard? In search of clarity, I booked a flight to Bali. (It’s so absurdly cliché, I chuckle at myself whist writing this.) Yet once away the noise of daily life and routine slowly faded into the background. Space opened up to breathe, and to question and consider what I really wanted with life.

After coaching for 5 years I felt something was amiss. The students that advanced to reach their goals were not the most physically talented but those with their mindset and motivation dialed in. The ‘best’ exercises and cues only go so far if each time a student turns up to class they haven’t practiced, self-sabotage, are paralysed by perfectionism and so on.

Why do some people begin every session lamenting the fact that ‘x’ has happened and as a result their performance today is going to be sub-optimal? Why do some people turn up and do the work, week in, week out, work around inconveniences and injuries and others cancel handstand sessions because of a sore toe (yes, it happened)? The obvious answer here is that we are all different and some people want it more than others, and whilst in part that might be true the answer is much more complex and nuanced.

How can I better understand and help those that struggle with consistency, the self-saboteurs, the over-analysers and those low in self confidence?

This, pared with a self-serving desire to ‘manage’ life better and suffer less sparked my interest in psychology. A brief self-introduction: I can be deeply anxious, a serial over-thinker, unhelpfully anti-social and detrimentally neurotic - a sympathetic nervous system on cocaine. My default psychological programming can regularly turn me against myself and in search of the appropriate tools to make some serious upgrades here I am. How can I help myself?

These questions, together, led to my interest in the mind and to subsequently starting a master’s in psychology. Since then, I’ve spent hundreds of hours studying, reading and writing and my mind is regularly blown by the information available to us and its utility.

It may be that we’re all fucked. But its not bad news. We’re in this together. And the tools are out there. The road from fucked to a little less fucked is one i’m keen to explore. Join me.

Here, my aim is to communicate some of the key takeaways in a way that’s clear, practical and useful, whether you are an athlete, a coach or just someone who is curious about performance and human psychology.

2. Community. That means YOU.

I’ve created this space because I want to share some of my learning and insights, in the hope that you too can find utility in them. That being said, I still have much to learn and want to invite you to participate, engage, share your experiences and question. Yes. Question. And challenge. Lets share experiences and have conversation and debate.

Please join me on this journey.

Subscribe now

3. Frequency

For the moment posts will be once a month. It takes time to research, write and edit and I want to ensure the information is useful and not rushed. If you’ve got any topics that are of interest to you and think would be appropriate don’t hesitate to drop me a message!

Thank you so much for being here, reading this and getting involved.

Please don’t forget to say hello AND subscribe if you haven’t already.

4. Subscribe!

Subscribe now

Share Harry’s Substack

Subscribe now