Do a Google search for “turn out ballet” and you will find a wide variety of articles to supposedly help you train better and healthier. Going down the list of search results, article after article is loaded with “myth busters”. However, very few of these articles (if any) actually cite scientific findings on the matter. Therefore, I have written this article with ZERO fluff and ONLY those claims which have scientific studies to back them.
Let’s do the REAL “myth busting” now, shall we?
Here we go. Based on the scientific studies cited below, I have identified 2 of the biggest myths about turn out…
The Top 2 Turn Out Myths:
Myth #1: Hardly anyone is born with 180-degree turn out.
Myth #2: The knees and ankles are not designed to rotate, therefore turn out must come from the hips only.
These statements are proclaimed all over the internet and even in some popular books on ballet, yet, THEY ARE CATEGORICALLY FALSE.
Myth Buster #1: Most people ARE born with the ability to turn-out (read the rest of this article for the scientific and mathematical proof). Therefore, the real challenge is not turning out itself, but building the strength to HOLD the turned out position while dancing.
Myth Buster #2: The knees and ankles DO have a natural ability to rotate outward (a.k.a. “external rotation”, abbreviated “ER”). According to the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science (IADMS)1:
“Teachers encourage their students to turnout only from the hips, and as a working cue, this is sound advice. However, anatomically, there are contributions to a fully turned out leg that come from the structure of the knee and lower limb joints. Research suggests that on average, 60% of turnout is created by outward rotation of the hip. Twenty to thirty percent of turnout may then emanate from the ankle, with the remaining percentage created by the tibia and knee joint.”Turnout for Dancers: Hip Anatomy and Factors Affecting Turnout1
Translation:
“It may be good in a psychological sense to tell students to turn-out from the hips because that is where MOST of the turn-out happens, but a fully turned-out leg is actually the sum total of rotation in the hip, knee and ankle joints.”
(Funny that the latter part is exactly what Agrippina Vaganova stated in her book, “Fundamentals of Classical Dance”, first published in 1934, over 80 years ago. Lucky guess? Or way ahead of her time? Ahem, tangent, sorry… Back to the SCIENCE!)
The Proof
To prove this point that the knees and ankles do in fact have a natural capacity to rotate outwards, obviously I decided to “cut the crap” and cite nothing but the scientific facts. I wanted to find out what the normal range of motion is for any average, non-dancing person. But rather than attempting to find data which agreed with my pre-conceived notions, I did an unbiased search for any scientific articles which showed the normal range of external rotation in the knee, ankle and hip joints.
Here’s what I found (without weeding out any data which better suited my own personal beliefs):
According to physiologist Susan Hall, author of “Basic Biomechanics”, normal external rotation in the knee joint is 30-40 degrees2 (Jot that down… we are going to use this number later. And yes, I double checked with a few other sources too which also gave a similar range.)
Rotation in the ankle joint is a bit trickier to measure because, in ballet, “rolling over” (a.k.a. “everting” the ankle) by relaxing the instep is unacceptable as a means of standing turned out. However, a study conducted in 2003 by the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society showed that the ankle joint is actually capable of considerable movement in the transverse plane (a fancy name for the plane of the floor). That range of external rotation (measured from a standing position with the feet flat on the floor) is generally greater than 15 degrees.3 But for the sake of being conservative, let’s just say 15 degrees.
Normal external rotation of the hip joint for the average person was relatively easy to find, and the widely accepted number is 45 degrees.4
Adding up the minimum normal external rotation in the hip, knee and ankle joints for the non-dancing average Joe, we get a sum-total of:
45º (hip)
+ 30º (knee)
+ 15º (ankle)
_________________
= 90º of external rotation per leg
HEY! That’s exactly what one needs in order to fully turn-out!
90º right leg
+ 90º left leg
_________________
= 180º total turn out
Go figure.
I’m going to state the obvious and qualify this by saying that of course each individuals degrees of rotation will vary. However, I think it’s pretty darn cool and amazing to think that 180 degrees of total turn out is within the normal range for average people! What do you think?
For the turn-out nerds among us, I went one step further:
What if we looked at the scientific studies which showed the range of turn-out in ballet dancers?
There is one such study published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 19995, which measured the turn-out of 77 female novice ballet dancers, age 8-11 (recruited from 35 classical ballet schools throughout Melbourne, Australia, who trained an average of 4.7 hours per week), compared with 49 “controls” (non-dancing girls age 8-11). Surprisingly, they found that the ballet dancers actually exhibited LESS external rotation than the non-dancers! Of course, the mean difference was only 5º, which could be partially explained by measurement error (I am quoting from the article here).
But even more surprisingly, the mean turn-out in the hip joints of the dancing girls was only 32.3º. That’s over 12º BELOW the widely accepted average range of motion for a normal person! Why on earth would that be?
The answer is in the way that they measured the turn-out. In this study, turn-out was measured ACTIVELY, meaning the dancers had to use their own muscle strength in order to turn out. For example, when they measured turn-out while standing in first position, they instructed the subjects to begin in parallel with the hands on the hips. Then, they were asked to turn out from the hips into first position with one single sweep. As stated in the article, because the range of motion was tested actively (heck, they weren’t even given a barre to hold onto for balance!), the results “may have been influenced by joint and soft tissue tightness as well as by muscle strength.”
Turn-out is extremely difficult to hold in the center unless you have already been practicing turn-out, which most ballet schools do not teach, rather relying on the students to decide for themselves to what extent feels “comfortable”. So why in the world they did not also test the PASSIVE range of motion in order to compare functional vs. structural turn-out I don’t know, but this omission renders the whole study rather useless for determining whether most students can actually turn-out, in my opinion. If anyone has come across any other studies measuring turn-out in dancers, PLEASE let me know!
What are your thoughts? Do you think that most people have the natural ability to turn-out, if only we could unlock that potential? Let me know in the comments below!
1. Turnout for Dancers: Hip Anatomy and Factors Affecting Turnout by the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science
2. Basic Biomechanics by Susan Hall
3. Transverse Plane Motion at the Ankle Joint. Christopher J. Nester, BSc (Hon), Ph.D.; Andrew F. Findlow, BSc (Hons); Peter Bowker BSc (Hon) Ph.D.; Peter D. Bowden, MSc. Published 2003 American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society, Inc.
4. Goniometry Standards MacDermid, et al. J Hand Therapy 12:187-192, 1999.
5. Hip and ankle range of motion and hip muscle strength in young novice female ballet dancers and controls. Kim Bennell, Karim M Khan, Bernadette Matthews, Melissa De Gruyter, Elizabeth Cook, Karen Holzer, John D Wark. Published Br J Sports Med 1999;33:340–346.
Philip S. Rosemond on said:
Finally! Someone (Mary) put it plainly: turnout, aka external or lateral rotation of the legs in classical ballet, is -not- a function of the hips only. Brava, sister!
Turnout is a function of the entire leg from the hips down….actually from the back and abdomen down, if we are referencing the sources of strength and structural integrity it takes to be a dancer.
I have written about this incessently. Thank you Mary for including it in your blog. Certainly, there are many westerners who subscribe to the “hips only” ideology of turnout, erring further to move the leg forward in a la seconde, but this is their prerogative: I simply hope they realize that it is not following or improving upon a tradition of classical ballet. It is instead, altering its intent: to present clear and specific aesthetic lignes to an audience across a proscenium arch.
Sadly, those who do not follow the balletic aesthetic, and thus, thwart its ongoing evolution,, are doomed to train amateurs: simply put in today’s fiercely erudite and elite field of dancers, only those who present the aesthetic as it has been intended (since around the time of the 1810s, altered yet again in the early then late 20th century), will get jobs. Those who don’t turnout fully “”en dehors” from the back, through the hips, legs ankles and feet into the floor, are doomed to amateurism, no matter how much they desire to be professionals. The blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the misinformed instructors who teach them.
No, they don’t have to be Russian, American Italian or whomever: but, they do have to be true to at least the first 3 principles of classical ballet (there are dozens of such principles that become more refined in the length and breadth of training a dancer. I give four of them below.)
1) The legs are always turnout de cote’. (No scrimping on the family recipe, thanks!)
2) The foot/feet are -always- pointed (plantar flexed) when free of the floor, in process of becoming pointing when being freed from the floor, and returning to en plat (flat- doris flexed) when returning to the floor.)
3) Ligne: The balance of ballet is a form of aplomb, which is a vertical stance resisting gravity from the floor, and lifting the body vertically up. This is also true in the variety of positions of the arms and legs in reference to a) the center of the torso, sagittal, coronal and horizontal planes. b) space and the audience across the proscenial arch.
4) The positions and movement of the arms as as important as the legs. Aesthetically, the arms communicate the kinetic syntax and musical meaning of a position or phrase of movement, as the legs act as the grammar that is used to form the word.
The last 3 principles above do not pertain to the topic. But, they do pertain to teaching ballet as a ideological principle, that has stood the test of time to be considered a classical art form. Therefore, it can only be understood that if a person does not teach a student to turnout in accordance with what has been generally described in the text of this article (and another listed in the references: “Structural versus Functional Turnout”) Then it can be assumed that, sigh, they simply do not understand the art form in an educated and informed context.
Philip.
Lindsey Higgins on said:
Below is the conclusion to the Iadms paper you quoted from. I feel that your article was misleading in regards to what can be practically applied in classes, and I wonder how you interpreted the conclusion included below.
Conclusion
It is important to remember that external hip rotation and turnout are not the same thing. Turnout is understood to be a necessary component of many dance idioms. It is presumed to be “perfect” when each leg is rotated 90 degrees laterally. However, researchers agree that available external hip rotation coupled with the various contributions of the tibia and foot rarely add up to this magic number. As there is a vast array of individual differences in human bodies, there are many considerations in determining how to safely optimize turnout. As dance teachers and dancers learn the anatomical and biomechanical mechanisms underlying turnout, both general and individual, they will be more able to understand, evaluate and apply sound methods to improve turnout and optimize dynamic function.
Mary on said:
Hi Lindsey! You are correct, I do disagree with this conclusion that normal rotation rarely adds up to 90 degrees, based on the average degrees of external rotation cited in my sources above. I also disagree that this is some sort of ambiguous “magic number” because I know that there is nothing ambiguous about it; complete turn-out is crucial for ballet in order for the student to “find her center”. There are certain advanced movements which could dislocate a knee joint if performed without complete turn out, so it would actually be misleading to say that you CAN dance ballet without turn out.
Where I do agree with this paper is their assessment that turn out is a sum total of the rotation in the hip, knee and ankle joints, and I think that is quite telling coming from the IADMS, who tend to err on the side of caution.
NK on said:
Hi Mary. Thank you for your interesting article. Have you read Inside Ballet Technique by Valerie Grieg? It is an interesting read and contains many anatomical facts regarding turnout etc. :-)
Mary on said:
No, I haven’t read it! I will have to go pick it up. Thanks for the comment, NK!
Raya on said:
I wonder if ballet training (fairly shoddy) often causes a reduction in natural flexibility. I danced for 10 years, never got anywhere near enough turnout and high kicks were tough, fast forward 16 years and 7 babies, and I have started karate, and am just amazed at how well I can kick (high extensions) and turn out now. So I was left wondering if it was because I had not trained in years, or if these changes could be because of the changed in physiology due to child baring. Any ideas?
Mary on said:
That is really interesting, Raya… It could be that child bearing opened up your hips but you know something else that I heard once that is very interesting is that sometimes you can actually be MORE flexible as an adult than you were as a child/teenager! I’ll have to look for that study for the details but that is how I remembered it. It is probably true, though, that bad training could also cause excess tightness. Very interesting to think about! Thanks for the comment!