On The Ageless Warrior Lab podcast, host Dave Meyer brought up the ongoing debate around the constraints-led approach and ecological dynamics in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. After Meyer suggested that the two philosophies are often framed as opposing ideas when they may not actually be in conflict, guest Lachlan Giles agreed, calling the divide a false dichotomy.
“Yeah, I agree it’s a false dichotomy,” Giles said.
He explained that many practitioners conflate the constraints-led approach with the theory of ecological dynamics, even though they are not the same thing.
According to Giles, the constraints-led approach is essentially about creating structured training scenarios, games with specific goals, where athletes are allowed to discover effective movement solutions within defined boundaries.
“So there’s the constraints-led approach, which is basically like create a game, give goals, and within those constraints people will find good movement solutions,” he explained.
Giles acknowledged that research does show benefits to this method when compared to strict, step-by-step instruction, but he also questioned how closely those studies mirror real training environments in jiu-jitsu.
“That’s been shown compared to strict instruction under very specific conditions,” he said. “Personally, I don’t think the studies that they’re looking at have that much in common with what happens in jiu-jitsu.”
Even so, he conceded that the constraints-led approach can sometimes produce equal or better results than traditional instruction, which is why advocates often cite scientific backing.
“But under that, the constraints approach does seem to have good, or sometimes better, results than strict instruction or explicit instruction,” Giles noted. “So that’s kind of like when people are saying the science says that.”
Giles then shifted to clarify an important distinction: the constraints-led approach is a practical coaching method, while ecological dynamics is a broader theory about how humans learn movement.
“The constraints-led approach, that’s just an approach, and that’s not necessarily saying you can’t teach or anything like that,” he said. “You can give instruction and explicit instruction and combine the two.”
Ecological dynamics, on the other hand, makes a much stronger claim about how learning works. According to the theory, the brain does not primarily learn movements through verbal instruction or information processing. Instead, learning happens through interaction with the environment and repeated movement experiences.
“There’s the ecological dynamics, which is the underlying theory about how the brain works and how we are supposed to learn new movements,” Giles explained. “According to the ecological dynamics theory, your brain doesn’t learn movements through information processing. You don’t get taught things verbally or whatever and then do it. You kind of learn through experience and movement.”
However, Giles expressed skepticism about the scientific strength of that claim. He argued that ecological dynamics is difficult, if not impossible, to test in a meaningful way.
“This theory is impossible to actually test,” he said. “There’s no way to falsify whether this is actually how the brain works or not.”
Because of that, he believes that when people say “the science supports ecological dynamics,” they are often actually referring to research on the constraints-led approach rather than the theory itself.
“So I think when people are saying the science, I don’t think they can be talking about ecological dynamics,” Giles said. “They might be talking about the constraints approach.”
Drawing from his own experience as a high-level competitor and coach, Giles explained why he still values direct instruction alongside live problem-solving. He described situations where he spent long periods training and experimenting in a position, only to have someone offer a simple technical adjustment that immediately improved his performance.
“There are so many things throughout my jiu-jitsu where I’ve been playing live resistance in a certain area for a long time,” he said. “I think I’m pretty good at problem solving on the fly, figuring out good solutions, and then someone will come along and go, ‘Hey, why don’t you do this?'”
The result, he explained, is often instant clarity.
“I’m like, how did I not know this? It’s immediately better,” Giles said. “It’s not a solution I’ve come to myself.”
While supporters of constraints-based learning might argue that the right training setup would eventually lead athletes to discover that solution on their own, Giles believes that approach requires an extremely high level of coaching precision.
“You could possibly argue that had you put the right constraints on, somehow I would have come to that conclusion,” he said. “But then you have to have an extremely good knowledge of jiu-jitsu, much more than I do, to know what game to make for me to come up with that solution.”
Finally, Giles addressed how training environment affects the effectiveness of a constraints-heavy approach. In elite competition rooms filled with high-level athletes, less instruction may still produce strong learning because athletes are constantly facing difficult, realistic problems.
“If you got a top competition room, you’ve got more chance for someone to come through that with less instruction because they’re getting really good reactions,” he said.
But in a typical gym setting, he believes guided instruction becomes more important, especially for preparing students to handle challenges they have not yet encountered.
“If you’ve got someone in a regular classroom or gym, a lot of the problems they’re running into aren’t necessarily as high level or difficult,” Giles explained. “Having someone directing them and teaching them, ‘Hey, this thing will solve problems you’re going to run into later when you run into a good opponent,’ teaching them down that path, I think, is better.”
