How simplifying your language and ditching the anatomy lecture can actually make you a better teacher.
If you’ve ever taken a Pilates class and heard a teacher say, “Zip up through your midline,” or “Stabilise your lumbar spine while engaging your transverse abdominis,” you’ve experienced the internal cue — a cue that directs your attention inward, toward muscles or body parts.
Now, here’s the kicker: research consistently shows that internal cueing (like “squeeze your glutes” or “activate your core”) can actually interfere with movement quality, especially when learning or refining skills. Instead, external cues — which direct the attention toward the effect of the movement — are more effective for motor learning, strength output, and coordination.
Read more: Why We Cue (and Why It Matters More Than You Think)A 2013 study by Wulf & Lewthwaite and others in sports science have shown that when we focus on the movement outcome (not the mechanics), our brain is more efficient at recruiting the right muscles automatically. That means better performance, less overthinking, and more natural coordination.
Cueing isn’t just talking — it’s a decision
As Pilates instructors, we often get caught up in saying something just to fill the silence. But if the words we’re using aren’t moving the person forward — if they’re causing more thinking than doing — we’re just adding noise.
Good cueing isn’t about sounding smart. It’s about being useful. And sometimes, that means saying less, not more.
So what makes a cue effective?
Here’s the test:
- Does the client change their movement after hearing it?
- Did that change bring them closer to what they’re trying to do or feel?
- Can they remember and repeat it next time without your help?
If yes — you’ve nailed it. If not — it might be time to simplify.
Cues that confuse
Let’s look at some examples that sound smart but don’t do much for the person moving:
- “Engage your multifidus and pelvic floor.”
(Which one? Where? How? Now they’re just panicking.) - “Draw your ribs in and knit them toward the midline.”
(Are we sewing now?) - “Initiate from the proximal hamstring while avoiding lumbar extension.”
(Honestly, what even is this exercise anymore?)
These kinds of cues assume the client has a detailed map of their anatomy and can consciously control muscles in isolation — which is not how the nervous system actually works. They slow the movement down, increase cognitive load, and often result in less efficient movement.
Cues that click
Now let’s flip it. These cues speak to the movement outcome and are simple enough that the nervous system can do its job:
- “Push the floor away with your feet.”
(Creates hip extension without saying “glutes.”) - “Reach your hands toward the wall like you mean it.”
(Encourages full arm integration and spinal alignment.) - “Float your ribs up off your hips.”
(Gives a spatial reference that creates length and decompression.) - “Move like you’re sliding under a low table.”
(Regulates height and encourages core engagement without saying “core.”)
These types of cues free the mover to focus on what they’re doing, not how every part should behave. That’s the sweet spot — where language supports movement instead of micromanaging it.
Bottom line?
Whether you’re teaching or being taught, cueing should always serve clarity, not complexity. If your words aren’t helping someone move better, feel better, or understand better — they might just be filling the silence.
So next time you reach for a cue, pause. Ask yourself:
What’s the point of what I’m about to say?
And remember: movement is the goal. Words are just the bridge.
Olya, xx