FEMUR NECK ANGULATION IN VIRABHADRASANA II

In the practice of asana, questions often arise regarding the nature of flexibility. For example: Why is it difficult to bend the front knee deeply in Virabhadrasana I? Why is the range of spinal rotation limited in Marichyasana III?

These limitations are frequently attributed to what is commonly referred to as flexibility, which primarily involves the extensibility of soft tissues such as muscle fibers, skin, ligaments, tendons, and the fascial network. However, an equally significant factor is the skeletal system. Bones not only contribute to but also play a decisive role in determining an individual’s range of motion and overall execution of postures.

Although numerous variables influence asana performance—including neuromuscular coordination, proprioception, and joint integrity—this discussion will focus specifically on the influence of bone morphology.

It is not merely the presence of bones that shapes practice, but their morphology, including their length, proportions, orientation, and angulation.

For example, consider two femora with differing femoral neck angles and head orientations, both viewed anteriorly and belonging to the left side of the body. In the first case (on the left), the femoral neck is positioned more horizontally compared to the more oblique orientation of the second femur (on the right). Although additional anatomical differences can be observed at the femoral head and greater trochanter, for the purpose of this example the focus remains on the femoral neck.

The femur on the left represents a condition known as coxa vara, characterized by a decreased angle of inclination at the femoral neck. By contrast, the femur on the right demonstrates a more typical angle of inclination, generally regarded as anatomically normal.

In the second image, a posterior view illustrates the femur with coxa vara (the first femoral example from the previous image) positioned within the iliac acetabulum. The angle of inclination is depicted to facilitate visualization. Another important feature is the reduced lateral distance between the greater trochanter and the iliac bone. This shorter distance results in a restricted range of hip abduction when the pelvis is maintained in a neutral position.

In the third image, a posterior view illustrates the femur with a typical angle of inclination (the second femoral example from the first image) set within the iliac acetabulum. Here as well, the angle is drawn for clarity. In this case, the lateral distance between the greater trochanter and the iliac bone is comparatively greater. This wider spacing allows for an increased range of hip abduction while preserving a neutral pelvis, in contrast to the more limited range observed in the coxa vara example.

These anatomical differences can be further contextualized in relation to an example of the yoga posture Virabhadrasana II (Image 4).

If we consider the femur with the normal angle of inclination as the back leg in Virabhadrasana II, the greater potential for abduction permits easier execution of the posture, provided sufficient soft tissue flexibility exists to allow the front knee to bend and the inner thigh of the back leg to lengthen. This structural advantage reduces the need for compensatory strategies.

By contrast, if the back leg corresponds to a femur with coxa vara, the reduced abduction range presents biomechanical constraints. The practitioner may therefore be more likely to compensate through anterior pelvic tilt, forward displacement of the posterior femur, or by decreasing flexion in the front knee.

While numerous additional factors influence the performance of Virabhadrasana II—including soft tissue extensibility, neuromuscular coordination, and joint stability—this example highlights the role of skeletal architecture. Such structural variations may not always be apparent to the practitioner, yet they constitute an inherent aspect of the practice, shaping both its possibilities and its limitations.

Importantly, these anatomical realities should not be viewed as impediments or reasons to diminish one’s practice. Rather, they provide valuable insights into asana alignment, offering practitioners the opportunity to refine their practice by integrating an awareness of both skeletal structure and soft tissue adaptability, thereby supporting greater tensional balance and structural integrity.

Hugo Abecassis

“It is through your body that you realized you are a spark of divinity” - B.K.S. Iyengar