Internal training of strength [Archive]

TaiChiBob

09-22-2006, 04:58 AM

Greetings..

2) Tendons don't make you stronger. Connective tissue does just that: connects things. Whether it be connecting muscle to bone or bone to bone, the tissue itself has no contractile capacity at all and is not responsible for movement. Only your muscles move your body. Nothing else.I recommend some open-minded research.. Connective tissue is an equal partner in strength and movement, superior when understood and utilized properly.. connective tissue not only contracts, it expands, too.. something muscle cells can't do.. connective tissue through its tendrils and fibrils is what determines cell shape and movement.. but, don't take my word for it, i will repost some reference material:

http://www.intelligentbody.org.uk/PaulLeeReview.php

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200212/ai_n9153887/pg_2

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200104/ai_n8942183

http://theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=143

http://www.hellerwork.com/archives/000923.html

http://www.backfixbodywork.com/Athletic_Performance_Enhancement_Pt_2.htm

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/lcm.php

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:bNy6ffdTXh0J:www.amatsu.co.uk/pdf/Tension,%2520Integrity%2520and%2520Form.pdf+Connec tive+tissue+tensegrity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=25

Research into Connective tissue's contribution to physical performance and overall health is as important as any other isolated system.. but, before posting assertions of what it is or isn't, Google it.. the more information relative to this topic can be googled as: "Connective Tissue Tensegrity".. general Connective Tissue info can be searched as just "Connective Tissue", but it yields a lot of deep medical stuff..

Usually, posts like this are from people that have invested a lot into weight training.. and, if that's how one chooses to limit their experience, so be it.. i respect and even admire those that can dedicate so much of their discipline to sculpt a powerful "appearance", but.. there's so much more than appearance.. I also admit that there a balance between strength training and Connective Tissue maintenance.. it is fine balance.. but, ultimately, science and experience reveals the connective tissue as a higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist.. This IS a relatively new area of research, in the past the Connective Tissue System was generally overlooked for exactly the same concepts as Ford states, "Connective tissue does just that: connects things".. currently, it is clear that it does so much more.. check out the links, do your own searches.. the data is out there for everyone's benefit..

Be well..

explosiveturtle

09-22-2006, 06:07 AM

Lots of internal and external style's has cross over theory on how to blow more power. The very very old Baji Quan and Long Fist training has qi gong pratice. Xin yi has weight lifting.

Horse stand is one of the root of all power training. And we all know all martial art stress about the improtents of horse stand.

I'm sure now days: very few people can train internal strength like 200 years ago. Too few know how... and it's a load dreadful work.
so muscle plays a big part in power, however it's really what type of muscle you want to develop. Lean, bulk, explosive, or even just for show:cool:

Ford Prefect

09-22-2006, 09:26 AM

Greetings..

I recommend some open-minded research.. Connective tissue is an equal partner in strength and movement, superior when understood and utilized properly.. ...

I do open minded research. I go out without any fixed opinions, and I let the evidence point to the correct answer. The correct answer is:

Connective Tissue has NO contractile capability. Whether you are doing a tai chi form or a barbell bench press, it is your muscles that are doing the movement. Your connective tissue is along for the ride.

I am familiar with tensegrity, Bob, as is anybody who has ever taken an intro to human physiology class. It is a very real thing. It does not however move the skeleton or give strength. If you want to talk about a limb snapping back into place from extreme ranges of motion due to stored elestic energy in connective tissue, that is one thing. The problem is that this energy only comes into play in extreme ranges of motion and odd positions. It is also weaker than the muscles acting upon it else the stored energy of connective tissue would hyperextend and grind your limbs or rip muscles in half.

If you want to get extremely technical, connective tissue does have contractile capability the same way a stretched out rubber band has contractile capability. That however has no real application in athletic movements, or movements that require speed and power. It is a semantic argument that holds no water in all current research.

That is not to say that connective tissue strength is not important. It is equally important as muscular strength since strong muscles and weak tendons/ligaments are a recipe for disaster just as the inverse is true. That is why both muscles and ligaments develop strength in concert with each other. It is also why movements that build large amounts of strength such as weight lifting, sprinting, and ballistic shock exercises like plyometrics, likewise build very strong connective tissue. Seeing as how connective tissue's stored energy is weaker than that of a muscle and that it is very hard to build connective strength isolated from muscular strength workouts, one would ascertain that intense resistance training is the best way to go for both. If all you want is strong connective tissue, then you have the supplementary benefit of strong muscles as well.

To take a page from your book: I find people who post things like you are people who have invested a lot of time into esoteric practices to the exclusion of traditional strength training. They hope beyond hope that such practices will somehow lead them to the path of greater strength, and that is all they are left with: hope. If that is how the chose to spend their time, so be it. To each their own. That does not mean that they should dish out disinformation in an attempt to validate their practice. (BTW, I practice Tai Chi and am starting Ba Gua)

ultimately, science and experience reveals the connective tissue as a higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist..

For all those interested, this is statement born from an over active imagination. Science has in no way conlcuded anything of the sort. Every post I have made is firmly grounded in the latest and most accepted scientific knowledge surrounding athletic conditioning; This includes martial artists.

Perhaps Bob's experience has revealed this to him, but as for scientists and the athletes/coaches who are supported by their research, not so much.

This IS a relatively new area of research, in the past the Connective Tissue System was generally overlooked for exactly the same concepts as Ford states,

Also, this is NOT a relatively new area of research. Some of the pseudo-scientific theories surrounding this old and time tested research are "relatively new". Don't take my word for it. Take the word of esteemed scientists the world over. This is a list of collective works that are used to train olympic champions and professional athletic standouts. This goes for track stars as well as boxers and wrestlers... (ie those competing in aspects of fighting at the highest possible level of competition)

Supertraining by Mel C Siff and Yuri Verkoshanky.

Quick Bio: Mel Siff is a PhD in physiology specialising in biomechanics, MSc (Applied Mathematics) awarded summa cum laude in brain research, BSc Honours in Applied Mathematics and a BSc (Physics, Applied Math). His serious involvement with the Internet began when he devised the unique concept of electronic education in sports science based on methods of propositional analysis pioneered by the ancient Grecian philosophers. This enterprise created the well-known weekly P&P's (Puzzles & Paradoxes) and F&F's (Facts & Fallacies) which he wrote for various user groups, including Sportscience, Physio, PTHER, FIT-L, Sport Psycho and Weights.

Yuri Verkhoshanksy is largely considered one of the best sports scientists EVER. He was largely responsible for the training methods that produced Soviet olympic champions during the zenith of their glory. Yuri is the one who did all the research and developed what is now known as "plyometrics" in the western world.

Beware. This book is not written with the layman in mind. It is a book aimed at fellow scientists in the field covering every aspect of physiology as it relates to biomechanics in sports performance.

Anyway, this is getting long. I dodn't want to break it up into 2 posts. If anybody wishes to know more reading material or references for these ideas, I will post them.

RonH

09-22-2006, 10:15 AM

There are multiple parts of internal strnegthening. There is proper body mechanics with muscle/connective tissue tension and energy work. I've never heard of 8 brocade plus. I've heard of 8 strands brocade. I don't know if it's just a name difference or if there are movement differences.

There are 2 ways to activate the energy points throughout the body: movement of joints and tension in body tissues. I'm not sure of the exact relationship between tension in bone tissues and energy points, but I would say that it is a factor. I'm just not sure how much a factor it is (tension placed on it by the tension of soft tissue).

Different energy exercises place different emphasis on how much soft tissue tension is placed on the body and which joints are moved to stimulate energy point usage. And working out also helps stimulate energy points, too. Joints are moved, soft tissue has varying degrees of tension placed upon them, however, I would stress stamina of muscles over increasing strength for MA, competition or survival training.

Now, while physical conditioning has a lot of benefits (even when considering the more material aftereffects of weight training), the energy, internal strengthening is really leaps and bounds ahead of it. Yes, there is proper body alignment that's needed, but without the energy work, proper body alignment will only get you so far. It's not just the tendons in the muscle bellies.

You want something that will help quantify internal strength training. Rehabilitation of old injuries is a prime example. Why? Because in developing your energy points, it enhances how your body works, like rebuilding a car engine into something faster, stronger and more powerful. It enhances your ability to heal, returning your old injuries into a previous form where it was healthier.

But, it isn't just your ability to heal that gets enhanced, it's everything. Every part of you. Strength, speed, stamina, your ability to think. How much it is enhanced is determined by how much effort you put into it. You are the best quantifier because of comparing how you are now with how you were before.

If you want something that's right in front of your eyes, time yourself to see how much more you can do. Use the same type of euipment and record the differences in what you can do now and compare it to what you did before. If it's something, like how well you hit, judge based on what happens to what you're hitting, whether it's a bag or something else..

Ford Prefect

09-22-2006, 11:04 AM

One more thing. Although Mel Siff has recently passed away, his Yahoo training group that he had moderated still remains:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

You can joing this group of which many members are highly respected scientific researchers and athletic trainers from the world over. You can let them know about what science has proven as far as science proving that "connective tissue as a higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist". I'm sure they'd love to know just what "science" has done that.

TaiChiBob

09-22-2006, 11:50 AM

Greetings..

To take a page from your book: I find people who post things like you are people who have invested a lot of time into esoteric practices to the exclusion of traditional strength training. They hope beyond hope that such practices will somehow lead them to the path of greater strength, and that is all they are left with: hope. If that is how the chose to spend their time, so be it. To each their own. That does not mean that they should dish out disinformation in an attempt to validate their practice. (BTW, I practice Tai Chi and am starting Ba Gua)Well, i have done, and still do, quite a bit of work with weights and resistance.. it has only been in the last year that i have been able to make the break-through in awareness and do the research necessary that contradicts most of the "disinformation" about the Connective Tissue System (CTS).. but, i don't intend to quibble about it, the data speaks for itself.. i'v dropped 15 pounds of counter-productive muscle, and gained much more strength , particularly where it matters most.. and, indeed, i have invested a lot of time in "esoteric" practices.. but, not to the detriment of sound physical exercise and dedicated Taiji practice..

Now, as cleverly worded as the post is, i assume that Ford is an intelligent being.. but, the evidence also suggests a lack of pragmatism:

They hope beyond hope that such practices will somehow lead them to the path of greater strength, and that is all they are left with: hope.Until someone (in this case i refer to Ford) is open-minded enough to test, in a practical manner, the assertions of emerging research and equally reputable researchers.. it is easy to contradict things you haven't given a pragmatic chance.. i am, of course, supposing that you haven't actually gone through the disciplines that might reveal much of the info i am posting.. i understand, this limitation, i am occasionally prejudiced to my own detriment, too..

Also, this is NOT a relatively new area of research. Some of the pseudo-scientific theories surrounding this old and time tested research are "relatively new". Don't take my word for it. Take the word of esteemed scientists the world over. This is a list of collective works that are used to train olympic champions and professional athletic standouts. This goes for track stars as well as boxers and wrestlers... (ie those competing in aspects of fighting at the highest possible level of competition)Now, i can cite many reputable scientists and many well-funded research grants by cutting-edge institutions.. and someone will call it "psuedo-science".. similarly, someone can cite contrary perspectives and i could express my own rebuttals.. i.e.: "old-school, behind the times, self-validating, etc.. but, those interactions are largely counter-productive.. i've successfully played in both camps, and my cumulative experience persuades me that the CTS is a fundamental component of the "real" Taiji experience.. so, as is my nature, i try to pass this information along, without attaching any other value than an intention to get people to consider alternative power sources..

Now, more to the point: I do not "hope beyond hope that such practices will somehow lead them to the path of greater strength" as Ford surmises.. i evaluate evidence from many perspectives, test the evidence, and formulate sound opinions.. i'm 5'9" and 153 lbs., i spar, roll, and push with people on the far side of 200 lbs. with success that i have evaluated to be directly linked to the CTS and its disciplined use.. i train with weight and resistance, but.. not as a "muscle-building process", rather a toning and balancing process in an attempt to find the most beneficial relationship between the neuro-muscular system and the CTS.. any concept that the CTS is isolated to ligament and tendon systems is a fundamental mis-understanding of the CTS.. it permeates every cell down to the DNA level.. any doubt that the CTS is responsible in a real and tangible proportion of strength, movement, health, and a myriad of other functions is equally flawed.. the CTS is much more than "along for the ride", it is part and parcel "the ride".. but, this is, actually, old news, as well..

But, this is becoming laborious.. as always, there is the wisdom of the third party observer to consider.. i have posted links, suggested searches (current scientific research), and related my own and other anecdotal accounts.. rather than do the "my sources are better than your sources" duel, i will rely on the analytical abilities of the others.. my own experiences have settled this issue, for me.. and, i began this research as a skeptic, having much the same opinion as Ford, go figure..:confused:

Be well...

TaiChiBob

09-22-2006, 12:01 PM

Greetings..

One more thing.. we go at each other from differing perspectives.. respect given will be respect returned.. we will each stack our evidence to favor our preferences, and.. we will test each other's mettle and keyboard skills.. but, ultimately, we will live according to the our individual experiences.. not much more will be accomplished, really.. well, maybe we will generate more interest and investigation in the subject.. then, others can form "their own opinions"..

Be wel...

spiralstair

09-22-2006, 12:27 PM

science n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Hi Guys,
Through my own personal scientific experience of strength training over the past 30 years, I have found this:
Strength training through classic resistance exercises that involve whole body muscle and joint recruitment patterns are an indispensable tool to providing a lasting health framework. They also teach over time a very detailed method of self-correcting one’s kinaesthetic sense. If one doesn’t do the lift with correct posture and intent, one hurts.

Internal methods that rely on ‘relaxed musculature’, a feeling for ’chi’, ‘peng path’, CTS, and the like are an advanced method that do produce an unusual degree of health and strength in my experience. However, I have also noticed a common tendency among practitioners of these methods to ‘rush it’, and since unlike the classic ‘external’ strength building methods there is no built in self-correcting mechanism, often the ‘results’ are mostly in their minds, not in their bodies.

I have come to think that the ‘external’ methods of strength building should be used like the ‘income earning’ portion of your life, when you are young through middle age.
Make a lot of ‘money’, and invest it wisely(a proper strength building foundation).
If you do it well then you can ‘retire’ and live off your investments while really having a lot of fun investigating the ‘other’ path (internal strength).

Plus by then maybe you’ll be secure enough to let others go there own way, no matter what they think of yours.

Peace

Ford Prefect

09-22-2006, 12:41 PM

Like I said in my last post, if you are confident in this information, then join the Supertraining group and start a discussion on it.

Most participating members (as opposed to those who just like to read the conversation or pose a simple question) are either trainers who train the upper echelon of athletic talent across the world in all sports or PhD'ed researchers who work for universities around the world pushing the cutting edge of physiology and biomechanics research. It has historically been used as a forum for high level researchers and trainers to collobarate, share data, and challenge "doctrine".

When you do so, you won't feel the need the need to talk down to a random internet poster as a random internet poster as all group entries must be signed with your real name and location. The contributors there are some of the most accomplished in their field, and have no qualms about dishing the dirt. Again, join the group. See what live cutting edge researchers tell you in discussion instead of reading a book or internet article.

BTW, I love statements of conversion. They crack me up more than any other fallacious argument.

TaiChiBob

09-22-2006, 12:56 PM

Greetings..

spiralstair: Nice analogies, and.. reading between the lines, your point is well taken.. Thanks

Ford Prefect:
BTW, I love statements of conversion. They crack me up more than any other fallacious argument.LOL.. how's the lofty view? you certainly assume much, about those you know little of.. and, i can't wait for the "your type" response.. but, i will investigate the referenced group.. without condescending or inflamatory rhetoric.. my interest is in learning, not "being right".. or converting non-believers.. if i am mis-informed, i will find out by experience, not by being told by elitist people with vested interests in the "world-class" programs they profit from.. yet, i will listen openly AND test their theories (those i haven't tested heretofore)..

Be well...

RonH

09-22-2006, 01:19 PM

I think what TCB is getting at is that even if that particular group is as you've said, he doesn't feel the need to say it to others just because he believes it, to do it to compete.

Edit: Okay, he beat me to it. And while he is interested in hearing what they have to say, I think I'm still right in the spirit of how he feels about the subject of "competing" on this matter.

travelsbyknight

09-22-2006, 03:27 PM

And I don't mean that in a good way.

<<<Plymouth Rocks

Sure, stand in santi (or any such stance). Relax but stretch your soft tissue outward (pengjin-like). Allow someone to press their bodyweight into your palm. While relaxed, support the weight easily. >>>

Quick question, dude. I'm not sure what you mean by "stretch your soft tissue outward(pengjin-like). Can you describe that part in less internal martial arty terms? Thanks.

Ford Perfect and Taichi Bob,

I see an emerging pattern. You guys keep firing back info "proving" your points. Here's the jimmy of it all: If an organization grants me tons of money to conduct research showing weightlifting is great for us all...guess what I'm going to end up "proving"? The research tends to prove the point of the organization that grants the money. So...you guys should stop wasting time posting your links about Jon Ph'D who researched and proved NOTHING.

Ford: Weightlifting, in its current form, isn't traditional as you put it. It's a product of modern society. They didn't have Universal machines in ancient Greece! The only thing I've ever gotten from weightlifting, besides looking very hot for the ladies, is injuries. You're probably going to say that I wasn't doing it properly but that's the problem with this modern way of working out. There is not right and wrong way because there are new theories all the time on how to increase muscle, lose fat, build up explosive muscle, etc. I stopped working out so heavily and many of my pains vanished. I focus now on technique, structure, footwork/positioning and moving with my whole body. I hit a lot harder than I used to. I may not get as many looks from girls on the beach but the hitting harder part makes up for that. :(

My point is that the weightlifting thing is out of my system and now I'm trying something different. Doing "mystical slow chi gung" is a hell of a lot harder than lifting weights. It's easy to be tense. Relaxing is the hard part.

fiercest tiger

09-22-2006, 03:37 PM

Shaolin monks lifted weights, stone balls, stone locks, barbells type stuff plus many heavy devices if you look in the 72 arts of shaolion you will find many.

Taiji use ball, bagua use balls, i think weights done in the right fashion is needed. Plyometrics, body weight, all useful this is what a athlete is be it kung fu or any other athlete.

Garry

Ford Prefect

09-22-2006, 04:29 PM

TBK,

I've practiced chi kung for years. I've practiced zen meditation for years. I practice Tai Chi. I practice Yoga. I think I have a decent idea about slow chi kung and relaxation.

All your example of having pains eased by quitting training highlights is your lack of knowledge on general strength and conditioning seeing as you were not able to implment a routine that left you healthy, stronger, and pain free. I'll break it down into bullets for ease of seperating point-by-point:

A) Traditional does not mean "hundreds of years old".

B) Modern means of working out are used to rehab people from injuries. Only when done incorrectly or implemented in an incorrect training program will it lead to injury.

C) Actually there really aren't new theories into the physiology behind muscle gain, fat loss, etc. The mechanisms behind which are well-known. For instance the energetic theory of muscle hypertrophy is the model that has stood for quite some time. What does change is opinions on the optimal way to preduced your desired results.

Many results based off a program are directly coorelated with the trainee's body type (endomorph, ectomorph, mesomoprh, etc), fiber ratios, metabolism, muscle length, insulin sensitivity, recoperative abilities and other such factors specific to each trainee. If you are unable to ascertain such information and how a program should be designed around it, then a qualified coach should be able to do so. One size never fits all.

D) If you don't want to lift weights, that's great. Not everything is for anybody. I respect individual's right to chose what they like to do. What I don't respect is passing on misinformation, and depending on my work load, I'll take exception to that. ;)

Ford Prefect

09-22-2006, 04:46 PM

TCB,

Nobody on that list hawks their wares there. Many have no wares to hawk as they are research scientists. As I said, it was used for a way of researchers to discuss concepts without needing to meet for a roundtable debate or go the peer-review route.

You came on this thread quoting me and then personally attacking me. And yes, insinuation somebody is not "open minded" is an attack and an ad hominem fallacious argument to boot. You then make more fallacious arguments by appealing to a false authority by saying science has proven that connective tissue strength is more important than muscular strength for martial artists. Can you point to scientific studies done on such phenomena occuring in martial artists that have been published for review in a peer-reviewed medical journals as well as reviewing scientist's comments on the validity of said studies? No. Alrighty then. You go on with yet more fallacious arguments with your statements of conversion about how you thought X way, but after learning more, you are now doing Y.

You talk about lofty views, but you have been nothing but condescending. You make fallacious arguments left and right. You make assumptions about people you don't know left and right. It's sad.

imperialtaichi

09-23-2006, 04:27 AM

Can you explain the difference in spear to body weight training or weighted ball workouts if you could cause i think they all can give you a full body workout even if you use Yi , chi etc as part of the training as well relaxed movements.

Hello Garry,

Try this at home: try throwing a tennis ball by:
1. the normal way, eyes far ahead, relaxed, and throw
2. keep your eyes on the ball, put as much strength into the ball as possible then throw it out, eyes never leaving your hands.
Without doubt, you'll be able to throw with method 1 much further than with method 2. And I don't really have to explain why because it is quite obvious.

The reason why I like the spear is because the metal tip and the red tassle helps me "look ahead" like that first ball throwing method. The spear can get pretty heavy and gives me an im-balance force which simulates an opponent more so than weighted balls and dumb bells. The flexible waxwood further add to difficulties in control and balance.

Resistance training with dumb bells etc sure builds up muscle bulk, but similar in quality to the second ball throwing method.

Cheers,
John

spiralstair

09-23-2006, 06:40 AM

Imperial:
You mentioned on another thread about the process of "feeding the energy",
where the student 'feeds' into the peng structure of the teacher, creating a bigger 'Bounce'
in return.

Using weights it is possible to train this same whole body ability by,

1st: establishing a peng supported structure with arms extended to the elbow

2nd: lying an unweighted olympic bar across the arms and holding it with the peng

3rd: slightly rotating at the waist to develop a sense of the waist directing the movement

4th: contracting and expanding from the tantien while using the resistance of the bar to 'check' that you keep the 'peng posture'

one should do this in small amounts of time with a strict 'internal' sense of when the holding force goes from 'peng path' to traditional muscle path.
this is one of many cross training exercises that challenge the boundries between 'external' strength training and 'internal' strength training.

Peace

Plymouth Rocks

09-23-2006, 08:31 AM

I don't weight train and I can hit you hard enough to make your fillings come out. Fajing, that's all. But I've got nothing against that training. One of my top students was a serious weight trainer/ black belt karate guy. Started with me because he wanted to understand how I could hit so hard while still being relaxed. Now he has incorporated internal training with weight training somehow. I do like body weight training although I don't really do that either.
travels: I could show you but it's difficult for me to describe. Frankly I don't like all the typing.
Buddy

fiercest tiger

09-23-2006, 02:40 PM

Hi John,

Thanks, i dont do dumbells i roll the ball and do many different exercises with the ball that i havent seen yet in other internal arts. The throwing you speak of is also part of our striking using the 3 circle method one day ill meet up and we can compare.

I like all weapons as we have 18 weapons and 2 man i guess we learn all different shapes sizes , weights of spinning, poking, lifting, sinking etc.

Garry

qiphlow

09-23-2006, 06:24 PM

i don't lift weights, but i do feel stronger since starting taiji and standing--perhaps it's that i'm leaning to use my body in a coordinated fashion vs. relying on individual limbs to perform a task. also i notice that i have greater "muscle endurance", and i don't feel the need to tense up so much if i have to lift or move a heavy object. i can recover faster, too.

imperialtaichi

09-24-2006, 05:05 AM

Using weights it is possible to train this same whole body ability by,

1st: establishing a peng supported structure with arms extended to the elbow

2nd: lying an unweighted olympic bar across the arms and holding it with the peng

3rd: slightly rotating at the waist to develop a sense of the waist directing the movement

4th: contracting and expanding from the tantien while using the resistance of the bar to 'check' that you keep the 'peng posture'

Hello Spiralstair,

Sounds like a good way to develop the Peng power. :)

I guess what would be interesting would be to cross compare the quantity and quality of power developed through different methods. Working collectively towards a common goal.

Cheers,
John

Plymouth Rocks

09-24-2006, 08:41 AM

Sounds a lot like long pole shaking, as well. BTW anyone know where I can get a new one? 10' or more white waxwood.
Buddy

TaiChiBob

09-25-2006, 05:38 AM

Greetings..

Ford: Examine your first post in this thread, it demonstrates the same characteristics that you are lamenting of mine.. we are passionate regarding our perspectives, as it should be.. do not assume that i have "attacked" anyone, i have made points and counter-points.. if i were to attack someone it would be much more obvious.. I have agreed to investigate your referenced site, and hope to avoid further conceptual conflicts with you.. i have offered many resources for anyone's examination, and have no other purpose than for them to form their own opinions.. we differ in our understanding and experience of physiology and Internal Martial Arts.. all we can do is evaluate each other's perspectives and compare to our own understandings..

You are equally condescending and attacking, let's call that one a draw.. you ask me a question, "Can you point to scientific studies done on such phenomena occuring in martial artists that have been published for review in a peer-reviewed medical journals as well as reviewing scientist's comments on the validity of said studies? No. Alrighty then.".. then, answer it.. interesting tactics.. as for "ad hominem" attacks and "fallacious" arguements, another interesting interesting tactic.. reminiscent of the mantra "mixed messages", where if said loudly and long enough, people begin to believe it.. but, that is the nature of this level of interaction..

Now, i am happy to confirm the usefulness of muscular development, i am also an advocate of a holostic approach, where an evaluation of the whole being and its symphony of interactive systems and operations are balanced for optimum performance.. hence, my interest and training with the CTS.. where i advocate, based on research, that there is a point where muscular development impedes CTS operations to the point of diminishing returns.. i advocate that there is a very beneficial relationship between the neuro-muscular system and the connective tissue system.. which is soundly rejected by Ford, with prejudice.. i do not attack anyone "personally", i may question proffered assertions.. and, if by doing so, someone feels attacked, i apologize.. if you are feeling defensive or persecuted, those are personal issues i can't be responsible for.. my reference to open-mindedness was merely a suggestion, not an "attack"..

If there is evidence of studies that contradict my assertions of the connective tissue's importance in a holistic training environment, i am interested in them.. i am interested in correcting any mis-conceptions in my goals and methods.. but, claiming it to be "psuedo-science", fails to constitute evidence of contradiction.. directing me to examine evidence of other perspectives fails to contradict the perspective i currently favor.. what is necessary, if the intent is to challenge the connective tissue's role in good physiological performance, is evidence that it doesn't.. not a distraction to other topics, or "psuedo" claims..

So, i hope we can get past the personal issues and begin to exchange information.. or just agree to disagree.. in any case, i don't think this exchange is beneficial in its current direction.. this is a forum of people working toward a common goal, understanding the Arts we have chosen.. it is not a formal logical debate society or forum for demonstrating intellectual prowess.. or, if it is, i'm in the wrong place, for many reasons..

Be well..

Fu-Pow

09-25-2006, 11:53 AM

Some articles that refute Ford Prefects position:

http://www.rmaxinternational.com/44/sonnon11.html

http://www.rmaxinternational.com/43/sonnon1.html

Fu-Pow

09-25-2006, 01:33 PM

Some articles that refute Ford Prefects position:

http://www.rmaxinternational.com/44/sonnon11.html

http://www.rmaxinternational.com/43/sonnon1.html

Most poignantly:

Conventional strength training believes that if you increase the size and strength of each of these parts, somehow magically the whole will become better. Over the years hundred thousand dollar bodybuilding machines evolved to shackle us in place, forcing the load to be localized as much as possible. These machines substituted efficiency for us and they began the neural adaptation of dumbing down our coordination.

Likewise, in order to lift the heaviest possible weight, powerlifting created three ultra-short range gross motor lifts. Like bodybuilding, these so-called power-lifts cause us to move less and less until, through injury and adaptation, one’s mobility becomes non-existent. The belief that isolating these parts would make us bigger and stronger, and would cause us to become more fit and to perform better, is a direct result of this compartmentalized view of anatomy.

But as we all know, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Bodybuilding and powerlifting, moving in isolated planes, fail to address how we move in the real world: three dimensionally. They ignore the rotary, angular/diagonal, as well as the most important synergistic nature of human performance.

We are actually what modern scientists describe as a “double bag” system. The inner bag contains hard tissue: bones and cartilage. Where it is cling-wrapped around the bones it is called periosteum, and where it wraps the ends of bones together it’s called joint capsule. The outer bag contains an electric jelly that we call muscle. Where it wraps the muscle we call it fascia, and where it tacks down to the inner bag we call it a muscle attachment or insertion point.

Forcing the isolation belief onto the reality of our double bag system is like firing a cannon from a canoe: the detonation may happen, but with adverse catastrophic results.

So how can we train to improve the health and fitness of the entire double bag system?

My thoughts:

Biotensegrity is the key. The bones are the tension elements and the muscles, tendons and ligaments, etc are the compression elements. The bones essentially "float" in the tension elements the bones never actually making contact. The classical mechanical conception is that "structure" is dependent on the bones lining up on top of each other in the force of gravity. This squeezes the joints together and makes the shorter. Eventually, leading to actual contact of bone on bone, arthritis, etc.

We exist in gravity which exerts a continous force upon the entire structure. The pressure differential created by breathing also exerts a force on the structure. It requires very little muscle movement to harness the expansive, contractive and elastic qualities of the body which are responsible for motion, generating force etc.

Using the classical mechanical notion of body as a series of hinges is flawed. The structure of the human body is much more interdependent and dynamic than that. To harness the full potention you must exercise the body as a whole, the joints in the maximum range of usable motion, the expansive and contractive qualities of the body.

In Taiji we talk about opening/closing, turning, rising/sinking. All motion must have a compensatory motion in the opposite orientation/direction somewhere else.

On another note, many people have experienced "long" energy in Taiji which "floats" the whole body of the opponent, like on a wave. Few have experienced "short" energy which is a quick penetrating pulse that doesn't move the opponents body much but penetrates . If you had experienced that then you would put down your weights and start focusing on how to generate this "wave" of power.

My 2 cents.

qiphlow

09-25-2006, 03:23 PM

i agree with fu pow--i think that weight lifting does have some health benefits, but long term workouts with heavy weights would probably set up a body and mind state that is contradictory to internal martial art training. just my speculation.

Scott R. Brown

09-25-2006, 03:26 PM

Fu-Pow

09-25-2006, 04:15 PM

Hi Fu-Pow,

One of my favorite descriptions of proper striking is the wave motion that is generated from the ground and moves through the body to the impact area.
______

Sonnon's article does not refute Ford's position. No experienced athlete or coach trains using principally isolation exercises. They are used to train around injuries and sometimes to address specific training goals. All experienced athletes and coaches are aware that strength training is ancillary to skills training. Strength training is performed using actions that enhance the muscles used for the specific sport or action. Power training may be used for specific sports to develop what is called a strength base. These are not exercises that are performed singularly in a vacuum. Other sport specific exercises that are not actual weight training are included within a training cycle called a macro-cycle.

Sonnon: Conventional strength training believes that if you increase the size and strength of each of these parts, somehow magically the whole will become better.

While I agree with many of Sonnon’s concepts no scientific evidence has been presented. Therefore his comments do not actually refute anything Ford has stated because Ford’s opinions are based upon millennia old training concepts with ample anecdotal and scientific research to back them up.

At least you seem to be willing to take his word for it:

Ford Prefect: Every post I have made is firmly grounded in the latest and most accepted scientific knowledge surrounding athletic conditioning;

Do you know him IRL or something?

Sonnon provides no research data to back up his statements; therefore they only fall into the realm of opinion and not scientific evidence. I am not saying there is not scientific evidence to support his claims. Just that since he does not provide any his comments do not refute well established scientific conclusions.

What data has Ford presented? All he has done is assure us that he consults the "experts" and so his/their opinions are better. Biotensegrity is not new and there are several peeps studying it. I just found an article in Scientific American about it recently. It's a useful model for approximating how biological organisms function, more so than the classical mechanical model that precedes it. Models change, that's part of science and sometimes it takes time for the new models to catch on and for enough data to accumulate to support them.

All Sonnon has done is market himself as an expert. His statements are directed to novices whose only exposure to weight training is body building magazines and espn’s strong man events.

Not sure about that.

It is nothing more than a holistic approach to training. Nearly all elite athletes train this way. It is not new, he did not discover them or develop anything new or unusual.

Well I think in this context (and Scott Sonnon's) we are talking about martial arts and long term health specifically. Does weight lifting help in the context of some sports? I'm sure....powerlifting be the most obvious example.

However, Scott is pointing out that in the long term that lifting weights may do irreparable damage to the body and not really help in the context of Martial Arts because Martial Arts requires a "holistic" combination of skills and the correct use of and correct type of strength.

As an aside, I am with TaiChiBob on this. What matters most is what works and what does not. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. What is important is to investigate, explore, experiment and try to understand the results in order to improve our overall performance.

But "science" (since you brought it up) seeks to explain the cause and effect....so that we can better predict which course of action will yield a similar results in the future. Science is not just "practical" or "empirical", it contains an ideational/analytical/rational component where we try to construct models to explain sensory phenomena.

The classic models of "strength" are unsatisfactory to explain the "strength" of internal arts. We have the empirical "data" in the form of experiences that we have had with skilled martial artists that use no muscular strength in the classical sense. (Some contend that even this is a "trick", yet I find it hard to believe that a "trick" could be repeated so often and in so many different scenarios.)

So we are looking for other models to fit the "data." The biotensegrity model of the human body may explain a lot of it (better than the semi-mystical pseudo-science of the ancient asians) and so that's where the cutting edge is right now. And it seems to jive with what we have experienced and heard from our teachers.....

...speficially that lifting weights can be a detriment to skill development in the internal arts.

FP

fiercest tiger

09-25-2006, 04:21 PM

Sonnon, has ripped off everything and claiming it as his own.....RMAX Qi Kung, RMAX Ninjutsu, clubbells!!!

Fu-Pow

09-25-2006, 04:27 PM

Kind of irrelevant to the crux of this debate.

Scott R. Brown

09-25-2006, 06:02 PM

Hi Fu Pow,

You seem to have misunderstood my point or I was not very clear in my meaning.

Conventional strength training does NOT “think that if you increase the size and strength of each of these parts, somehow magically the whole will become better.” I thought I made that clear. He is marketing to novices who do not understand sport specific training techniques NOT to those of US who are familiar with them. No educated coach or trainer thinks this way. Only people who get their information strictly from trite publications such as bodybuilding magazines and have done no real investigation into “well-known” effective training techniques would think in this manner.

No I have NOT taken his word for it. I agree with SOME of his views because I am already familiar with them. It is NOT new information! He did NOT invent the concepts he is espousing. I have used them and all well educated athletic trainers and coaches do as well and have done so for thousands of years. The ancient Greek Olympians trained according to these principles. IT IS NOTHING NEW that is why I agree with them.

There is a wealth of scientific research on athletic training. The basis of Ford’s claims is this FOUNTAIN of research. He does not need to cite sources. They are readily available to ANYONE who is seriously interested in athletic training and ANYONE who is seriously interested in athletic training is WELL AWARE of these sources. There are scientific journals whose sole purpose is to publish scientific research. Even laymen are permitted to subscribe to them.

I am sure about the fact that Sonnon is marketing himself because his ideas are NOT NEW or revolutionary. As I said, no respectable and knowledgeable athletic trainer or coach considers that size and strength will magically transform the whole. This is a ludicrous assertion and it demonstrates he is marketing because his statement is false. Only novices woiuld think this way.

Any physical activity may do irreparable damage to the body if performed incorrectly or excessively. Weight training, if performed responsibly provides a benefit NOT a detriment to the individual!

I am not making an argument against internal strength techniques. My comments were addressed specifically to the false assertion that Ford was effectively refuted by Sonnon’s article. He was not!

Internal strength techniques, the mental aspects most notably, are also commonly used in modern athletic training.

Anything can be abused to a detriment. There is nothing inherent in strength training that is detrimental to internal strength development.

Scott R. Brown

09-25-2006, 06:28 PM

I dislike this trite platitude, because nothing is ever equal, however, everything else being equal the stronger athlete will always win!

Internal strength will never overcome a biomechanical disadvantage. In fact every demonstration of internal strength I have ever witnessed can be explained in terms of a biomechanical advantage. That is the trick of it that unknowing observers cannot detect. Once the biomechanical advantage is identified it may easily be overcome. I have done this many times. Once the biomechanics are understood any technique may be effectively neutralized.

Dingo983

09-25-2006, 06:54 PM

I don't open my mouth around here often because I'm limited in my knowledge of Kung fu but wouldn't it be in someones benefit to strength train and train internal arts. I think the two would compliment eachother. I have been back to strength training again for a year now. I have put on approximately 20 lbs of muscle and 5 lbs of fat. I feel great. I have more energy, I can jump higher, walk up flights of stairs without tiring, punch harder, better grip strength and mentally I feel better and am more aware of my body all together. I think all these positive effects would only assist in progressing in the internal and external arts. (also I'm 35 year old, not a young kid with tons of energy.) Just my two pecos.

Scott R. Brown

09-25-2006, 07:19 PM

Hi Dingo983,

Your point is well made and I agree with it. “Balance in all things as much as possible”, is a dictum I try to live by.

One of the arguments made by strict internal cultivators is that muscle inhibits internal strength. This is a specious argument. It is often an argument used to insinuate superiority over others who appear to be physically imposing. That is, it is used to compensate for their own sense of inferiority in size and strength.

The difficulty that may occur with those who concentrate upon developing strength is the tendency to rely inordinately upon their strength instead of internal power. Internal power is primarily a function of body mechanics, but does involve a mental component as well. One thing that many strict internal power advocates miss is that all intentional functions of the body are determined primarily by ones state or condition of mind. Those who are at the upper echelons of any athletic endeavor understand that it is their mind that is the determining factor. This is adherence to internal principles. Therefore, even those who train only for so called external power development are still using internal principles to develop that power. We cannot escape our own minds. Life itself is a process of internal development.

Fu-Pow

09-25-2006, 07:53 PM

Another interesting article:

http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/Talks/Barcelona/Arch_Life.htm

I will respond to your comments Scott when I have more time to do so thoroughly...gotta go eat dinner!;)

TaiChiBob

09-26-2006, 05:44 AM

Greetings..

I suppose that my exhuberance in my learning of the Connective Tissue's important contribution to our art's fulfillment may be interpreted as me feeling that the connective tissue is superior to muscle in its contribution.. i stand corrected, it exists in balance and is complimentary.. however, ignorance of it or relegating to an unimportant position in our heirarchy of components will greatly diminish the experience we seek.. and, specifically, focused muscular development can easily compromise the balance of systems needed for a holistic experience.. i am a fan of good muscular development, much more in favor of toning and endurance over bulk and ROM inhibiting development..

Practical examples of activation of the CTS and its usefulness have been irrefutably demonstrated to me.. research confirms its importance in the internal arts and general health.. i have always utilized strength training, but perhaps a little differently than the phrase implies, resistance stretching, reptetitions, ROM resistance.. i really like the Total Gym products, they stretch you to the limits you choose and allow you to set the resistance as desired.. this system seems beneficial to the tendons and ligaments and, when i can activate the CTS, offers confirmation of its contribution toward my goal of improving my Taiji experience..

Time-honored tests of strength such as olympic or strong-man events are isolated from the process of living in a symbiotic world.. they are like photographs, carefully set-up to display a specific situation, but isolated none-the-less.. make no mistake, there are gifted and disciplined people with very developed muscle masses and great skills, these are formidable oponents, but.. i have been witness to, and even party to, their defeat by substantially smaller people that were relying on a more natural holistic set of physical dynamics.. it's those "mystical appearing" situations where someone slips into the "zone" and expresses a power not completely dependent on brute strength.. it is comparable to "listening" to energy, sensing its intention and making corrective adjustments before the opponent can manifest their intent.. crucial to this situation is relaxed Peng, where the CTS is actively sensing the opponent's internal communications through their CTS's frequencies.. this is a skill that demands much of the seeker, requiring many "investments in loss" as needed to hone the listening and sensing skills..

Once the listening and sensing skills have begun to develop, it is easier to establish a springy Peng at precisely the moment the opponent intends to apply force or intends to retreat.. the result is the opponent's unbalancing of themselves, a delicate and energy conserving technique.. the opponent, having caused their own up-rooting, will usually struggle to compensate and regain balance.. this is predictable and beneficial in-as-much-as the struggle usually provides ample opportunity effect a finishing technique through the opponent's resistance.. and, depending on the situation, the finish can be a nuanced but comprehensive up-rooting, a Chin Na application for immobilization and negotiation, or a decisive conflict conclusion.. all of this, i am learning, is greatly enhanced through a deep understanding of the relationship of the CTS with with the more mundane, or traditional, neuro-muscular capabilities.. balance being the operative relationship..

Be well...

Ford Prefect

09-26-2006, 06:44 AM

Ford: Examine your first post in this thread, it demonstrates the same characteristics that you are lamenting of mine.. we are passionate regarding our perspectives, as it should be.. do not assume that i have "attacked" anyone, i have made points and counter-points.. if i were to attack someone it would be much more obvious..

Calling into question the state of somebody's mind is an attack. It's rather simple. "If you had an open mind, you'd believe X" is the epitome of an ad hominem attack.

we differ in our understanding and experience of physiology and Internal Martial Arts.. all we can do is evaluate each other's perspectives and compare to our own understandings..

Not really. You made false claims immediately off the bat. You claimed that science had proven your assertions to be true for martial artists. That is absolutely incorrect. In order for that to be correct, there would have to be scientific studies done on the phenomena of which you speak and performed on martial artists as compared to other athletes of other disciplines as well as untrained laypeople. No such studies exist.

For my case, I assume a martial artist is performing physical skills like any other athlete. There are numerous studies done that test increases in base althetic performance in easily measured feats like sprinting, jumping, and agility. These actual peer-reviewed studies is what I (and the collective athletic training world) base their training strategies off of.

You are equally condescending and attacking, let's call that one a draw.. you ask me a question,

I answered like for like. If you can't take it, then don't be the first to start dishing it out.

This whole premise is rather amusing to me. It reminds me of creationist vs evolution debate. One side has the bulk of the scientific community in that field standing behind it with the bulk of research evidence supporting it and the other side has uncorrelated scientific studies and unscientific logical leaps that have a grounding in science but leap far beyond it.

If you came on here saying that X has worked for you, I wouldn't have said a single thing. To each their own. If you want to believe something, then so be it. It is the fact that you quoted my post, attacked me, and then made the absolutely false claim about science proving your position true. Sorry. I take exception to such things.

Ford Prefect

09-26-2006, 06:51 AM

Scott,

Ignore Fu Pow. He is a rather well-known and long-lived troll on this site. Sonnon as well as made his living in over the top marketing.

I agree 100% though. If it works for you, then use it. I also agree that all else being equal, the stronger, faster man wins. If you pose the question:

Say you had to fight somebody identical to you in almost every attribute; height, weight, reach, technical skill, etc.. everything. The only thing you differed in is that he is faster and stronger than you. Who has a better shot of winning?

The responses range from "well strength and quickness don't matter, so it'd still be even" to "strength is burden in this art, so I would" to the actual truth. Personally, I think reliance on outdated training methods and mystical concepts is what is holding TCMA back in terms of perfomance in combat.

TaiChiBob

09-26-2006, 07:48 AM

Greetings..

Ford:

Calling into question the state of somebody's mind is an attack. It's rather simple. "If you had an open mind, you'd believe X" is the epitome of an ad hominem attack. No, suggesting that someone reread my posts with an open mind simply might prove useful.. your posts hold a particular point of view substantiated by your prejudiced references.. no different than mine, but.. i do consider your references and concede points worthy of the issues.. i do not suggest that, "If you had an open mind, you'd believe X", i suggest that there is evidence that supports my assertions, which, evidenced by your responces, you seem to have failed to comprehend or even read..

Not really. You made false claims immediately off the bat. You claimed that science had proven your assertions to be true for martial artists. That is absolutely incorrect. In order for that to be correct, there would have to be scientific studies done on the phenomena of which you speak and performed on martial artists as compared to other athletes of other disciplines as well as untrained laypeople. No such studies exist.Again, you are making blanket assumptions, unsubstantiated and as if you were an authority on the subject.. By all means, demonstrate that "no such studies exist".. and try to do it without requesting that i prove they do.. it's your claim, now..

I answered like for like. If you can't take it, then don't be the first to start dishing it out.That is a bit of a reach, i was not the "first" to initiate conflict.. you entered a dialogue with condescending assertions, blanket unsupported statements, and statements contradicting previously identified reliable sources.. basically, looking for conflict.. you got it and now you whine?

If you came on here saying that X has worked for you, I wouldn't have said a single thing. To each their own. If you want to believe something, then so be it. It is the fact that you quoted my post, attacked me, and then made the absolutely false claim about science proving your position true. Sorry. I take exception to such things.If you had come in here to discuss the differences in our understandings rather than asserting "bad information" or "dis-information" perhaps we would have had a more rational discourse.. i didn't "attack" you, perceive it as you will.. your insecurities are not my issue.. Really, "absolutely false claim", could you please back that up?.. and, rather than "take exception", i find it more beneficial to dialogue and find out what is most beneficial to my own goals..

Although the following quote was not directed to me, i would like to offer a different perspective:

The responses range from "well strength and quickness don't matter, so it'd still be even" to "strength is burden in this art, so I would" to the actual truth. Personally, I think reliance on outdated training methods and mystical concepts is what is holding TCMA back in terms of perfomance in combat.Strength and quickness are essential components of the issue in question, combat.. all things being equal in terms of training, experience and skill.. the stronger faster person has the advantage, no problem.. where we differ in our perspectives is that we define the sources and components of strength and speed differently.. and, of course, the "mystical" quality.. i would be interested in hearing what you consider "mystical".. i have no concrete concept of "mystical" in relation to Taiji, i sense that there are situations and conditions that have yet to be understood, but.. they are still natural events, waiting our ability to measure, quantify and comprehend.. in other words, the jury is still out on some issues, better to leave an open door than to miss an opportunity..

Be well...

Fu-Pow

09-26-2006, 08:12 AM

Scott,

Ignore Fu Pow. He is a rather well-known and long-lived troll on this site.

Easier to call me a troll then address my points I guess. :rolleyes:

Sonnon as well as made his living in over the top marketing.

Throughout history there have been great originators and synthesizers of knowledge. For people to call Sonnon a rip-off artist is kind of ridiculous. Knowledge never exists in a vacuum.

The responses range from "well strength and quickness don't matter, so it'd still be even" to "strength is burden in this art, so I would" to the actual truth. Personally, I think reliance on outdated training methods and mystical concepts is what is holding TCMA back in terms of perfomance in combat.

Its funny that you bring up the evolutionist vs. creationist debate because from my perspective it is you that is on the "creationist" side of things. Sticking to your dogmatic, isolationist view of how the human body works instead of seeing it as an integrated, dynamic whole.

The problem is that you want something "scientific" to grasp on to, but science usually only has the small picture. It can only "prove" things in very controlled isolation. This makes it difficult to say anything about the larger organism as a whole.

To start with biological organisms are immensely complex. We are built out of atoms and molecules but more than the sum of our parts. Add on to that we have a subjective interior (ie mind) and it becomes extremely difficult to arrive at any "scientific" statement about the overall performance of the human body.

In martial arts you have 2 or more complex organisms, subjective interiors competing against each other adding to the complexity.
So how can you really know that isolated weightlifting exercise is adding to martial capability, when there are so many factors to account for?

The underlying assumption here folks is that bigger and stronger=better. That's the fallacy that Sonnon undermines in his article and its the philosophy that Ford espouses on these forums....unfortunately to the detriment of real martial skill development.

gabe

09-26-2006, 09:49 AM

Easier to call me a troll then address my points I guess. :rolleyes:

Throughout history there have been great originators and synthesizers of knowledge. For people to call Sonnon a rip-off artist is kind of ridiculous. Knowledge never exists in a vacuum.

Its funny that you bring up the evolutionist vs. creationist debate because from my perspective it is you that is on the "creationist" side of things. Sticking to your dogmatic, isolationist view of how the human body works instead of seeing it as an integrated, dynamic whole.

The problem is that you want something "scientific" to grasp on to, but science usually only has the small picture. It can only "prove" things in very controlled isolation. This makes it difficult to say anything about the larger organism as a whole.

To start with biological organisms are immensely complex. We are built out of atoms and molecules but more than the sum of our parts. Add on to that we have a subjective interior (ie mind) and it becomes extremely difficult to arrive at any "scientific" statement about the overall performance of the human body.

In martial arts you have 2 or more complex organisms, subjective interiors competing against each other adding to the complexity.
So how can you really know that isolated weightlifting exercise is adding to martial capability, when there are so many factors to account for?

The underlying assumption here folks is that bigger and stronger=better. That's the fallacy that Sonnon undermines in his article and its the philosophy that Ford espouses on these forums....unfortunately to the detriment of real martial skill development.

I didn't see anyone adocating isolation exercises only, while neglecting the rest of the body. Nor did I see anyone state that practising the supplemental isolated weight training exercise while neglecting the targeted skill is the way to go. In fact, I see the contrary. And sorry to reiterate Scott's points, but no expert weight trainer or fitness expert would go that route.

Sonnon's article, however, argues the extreme opposite. He states that there is no carryover between these isolated training exercises and actual performance. And a bigger and stronger muscle does not contribute to power or, again, performance, but is in fact detrimental.

He used the golf swing as an example. Is swinging a bat any different? Not really IMO. But baseball players taking steroids in conjunction with heavy weight lifting started breaking records. How do you explain that? Tiki Barber, an undersized NFL running back, spent his first couple of season injury prone and fragile. His recent success is attributed to his training program, which bulked him up. How many professional athletes improve themselves through weightlifting? I can't see how you can argue that the isolationist exercises has nothing to do with it.

Most importantly, isolationist exercises that are done in conjunction with isolationist exercises targeting other areas of the body, become a whole body routine.

The other things I'd like to mention is, after reading some of this, I don't see how the CTS can be considered separate to the Neur0-musc. system. When it is stated that they are complimentary, that implies that they are separate. Functionally speaking, they are wholly integrated. Movement requires the muscular nervous system. Since you can't separate the two, I find it hard to understand how you can argue advantages of one over the other. For that same reason, it's impossible to study either in separation when it comes to complex movement.

Lastly, Sonnon discusses power in terms of relaxation and tension, going from one to the other. This is what I've been discussing in terms of power, but somehow, I always seem to be on a different wavelength than most of the posters here.

Let's try to keep this discussion civil if possible.

TaiChiBob

09-26-2006, 10:15 AM

Greetings..

Hi Gabe:
The other things I'd like to mention is, after reading some of this, I don't see how the CTS can be considered separate to the Neur0-musc. system. When it is stated that they are complimentary, that implies that they are separate. Functionally speaking, they are wholly integrated. Movement requires the muscular nervous system. Since you can't separate the two, I find it hard to understand how you can argue advantages of one over the other. For that same reason, it's impossible to study either in separation when it comes to complex movement.You are mostly correct.. i think the issue is "imbalance", where someone over-develops the muscles to the detriment of the CTS.. the CTS is an intricate communication pathway, among other things.. muscles that are too bulky tend to compress the CTS and dampen its primary communication mode, vibration.. The CTS has "trigger" devices that allow us to physically engage it in its complimentary function.. If you were to stand at attention then fall forward, your hands reach out, intercept the ground then bring it toward you in a controlled fashion is the sort of trigger that is inspired by genetic instincts.. knowing that falling is painful, our bodies are hardwired to over-ride certain responses with the most appropriate.. this involves the more primitive instinctive CTS utilizing "tensegrity" to shift the body into something like a huge shock-absorber, dispersing much of the energy through-out the system.. this "activation" establishes a higher level of energetic coherence throughout the body.. it permits a holistic response to stimulus.. isolation training, while it is beneficial in some respects, often causes a dependence on isolated systems/groups diminishing the benefits of holistic responses..

I agree that isolation training has its benefits, but of equal or higher importance is developing an integrated holistic response.. of critical importance is one's goals.. isolation training may serve the weight-lifter or the body-builder well for their purposes.. but, it is my experience, both by observation and experience, that in most atheletic endeavors, a well trained and disciplined holistic approach, including CTS/muscle awarenesses produces the most beneficial results..

Surely, there is no harm in investigating the claims of CTS's benefits.. trying some of the recommended techniques, and making informed decisions.. it seems more prudent than rejecting claims based on "tradition", or things which we are comfortable with..

Be well..

RonH

09-26-2006, 10:46 AM

The responses range from "well strength and quickness don't matter, so it'd still be even" to "strength is burden in this art, so I would" to the actual truth. Personally, I think reliance on outdated training methods and mystical concepts is what is holding TCMA back in terms of perfomance in combat.

What this would do is reduce all IMA to the most base and simplified form just because others don't want to believe, taking out the main principles of what differentiates IMA from EMA because what it is is eliminating every potential that the art could be taken to just because it isn't so basic and obvious.

What separates IMA from an external art is the energy work. Not energy from chemical reactions and increased blood flow, but the loosely bound energy that flows through the body. Cut this part of the studying out, there's no point in calling it IMA. It's just more efficient EMA. You might as well just go for bigger muscles, if you do that.

RonH

09-26-2006, 10:55 AM

and, of course, the "mystical" quality.. i would be interested in hearing what you consider "mystical".. i have no concrete concept of "mystical" in relation to Taiji

Reading the Kybalion is a good start for understanding the mystical side of it. There should still be a copy available on online somewhere. If you can't find one, let me know.

Fu-Pow

09-26-2006, 11:15 AM

I didn't see anyone adocating isolation exercises only, while neglecting the rest of the body. Nor did I see anyone state that practising the supplemental isolated weight training exercise while neglecting the targeted skill is the way to go. In fact, I see the contrary. And sorry to reiterate Scott's points, but no expert weight trainer or fitness expert would go that route.

There are only so many training hours in the day.

In TCMA we talk about jin which is a certain kind of strength/skill that doesn't have anything to do with strength in the classical sense. It has to do with the correct type and correct use of strength.

IMO, what is more important to martial arts is skill and endurance, not raw strength. Furthermore, if you did want to develop raw strength you'd be better off to use motions that simulate real functional motions that you would use in 3d space, using the whole body....not the working muscles or muscle groups in isolation hoping that some how its all going to "come together."

Sonnon's article, however, argues the extreme opposite. He states that there is no carryover between these isolated training exercises and actual performance. And a bigger and stronger muscle does not contribute to power or, again, performance, but is in fact detrimental.

Well where is the connection between these weight lifting exercises and martial arts performance? How do these exercises in anyway approximate how the body can be used most efficiently in a martial altercation? There's not a "scientific" way to make this connection. Its all opinion as far as I'm concerned for reasons I've already stated.

He used the golf swing as an example. Is swinging a bat any different? Not really IMO. But baseball players taking steroids in conjunction with heavy weight lifting started breaking records. How do you explain that?

At what cost?

Tiki Barber, an undersized NFL running back, spent his first couple of season injury prone and fragile. His recent success is attributed to his training program, which bulked him up. How many professional athletes improve themselves through weightlifting? I can't see how you can argue that the isolationist exercises has nothing to do with it.

Weightlifting has its place, especially for injury.

Most importantly, isolationist exercises that are done in conjunction with isolationist exercises targeting other areas of the body, become a whole body routine.

Whole body...with the parts in isolation? Where is the exercise that connects the isolated parts in the many ranges of usable motion available to the human body?

Lastly, Sonnon discusses power in terms of relaxation and tension, going from one to the other. This is what I've been discussing in terms of power, but somehow, I always seem to be on a different wavelength than most of the posters here.

To be quite honest I don't think Sonnon has quite the picture that IMA's have. He's a nice bridge though.

Let's try to keep this discussion civil if possible.

Ford Prefect is big on the rhetoric, so we can either do things the rhetorical, debate style or this can be a dialectic. I have no problem with either.

Fu-Pow

09-26-2006, 11:18 AM

What this would do is reduce all IMA to the most base and simplified form just because others don't want to believe, taking out the main principles of what differentiates IMA from EMA because what it is is eliminating every potential that the art could be taken to just because it isn't so basic and obvious.

Amen!!!!

What separates IMA from an external art is the energy work. Not energy from chemical reactions and increased blood flow, but the loosely bound energy that flows through the body. Cut this part of the studying out, there's no point in calling it IMA. It's just more efficient EMA. You might as well just go for bigger muscles, if you do that.

Not sure I follow you there. There's definitely an electrical energy in the body but not enough to use in a martial sense. When you get hit with short energy it feels like an electric shock though, I think that is what causes the confusion. Mostly what we feel as "chi" is increased blood flow to the extremities because the joints and muscle relax and we are helping to push the veinous blood back toward the heart by expansion and contraction.

Fu-Pow

09-26-2006, 11:24 AM

http://www.rmaxinternational.com/43/simon.html

Fu-Pow

09-26-2006, 11:25 AM

http://www.rmaxinternational.com/43/sonnon1.html

RonH

09-26-2006, 12:11 PM

Not sure I follow you there. There's definitely an electrical energy in the body but not enough to use in a martial sense.

When I talked about the loosely bound energy there, I wasn't meaning electricity, but chi. Yeah, electricity moves throughout the body and as you said, the level of activity is not as strong as the energy I was refering to.

Mostly what we feel as "chi" is increased blood flow to the extremities because the joints and muscle relax and we are helping to push the veinous blood back toward the heart by expansion and contraction.

That and chi travels with blood, aside from going along the meridians. Blood, as well as the chemicals and nutrients that flow through the veins carries some of the chi of a living organism. You can perform exercises to increase the blood flow to the hands, but once they are rested, the chi will still remain, unless you direct it to go elsewhere. It will also naturally move when you perform actions, such as massages, typing, etc. But, if you keep your hands still, you can keep the chi there for a long time after you stop doing the exercises that increase blood flow.

Exercises, like the 8 strands brocade, will make your hands and legs shake after doing them for a very short time, where as working all day long doing construction is not gonna necessarily make your hands shake.

Also, there is a noticable increase in chi when staying in a relaxed and calm state during a stressful situation. Chi flows from the subnaval dan tien to your hands when you want to perform a punch and 'supercharge' your punching hand before you make contact with the target.

gabe

09-26-2006, 12:44 PM

There are only so many training hours in the day.

In TCMA we talk about jin which is a certain kind of strength/skill that doesn't have anything to do with strength in the classical sense. It has to do with the correct type and correct use of strength.

IMO, what is more important to martial arts is skill and endurance, not raw strength. Furthermore, if you did want to develop raw strength you'd be better off to use motions that simulate real functional motions that you would use in 3d space, using the whole body....not the working muscles or muscle groups in isolation hoping that some how its all going to "come together."

Well where is the connection between these weight lifting exercises and martial arts performance? How do these exercises in anyway approximate how the body can be used most efficiently in a martial altercation? There's not a "scientific" way to make this connection. Its all opinion as far as I'm concerned for reasons I've already stated.

At what cost?

Weightlifting has its place, especially for injury.

Whole body...with the parts in isolation? Where is the exercise that connects the isolated parts in the many ranges of usable motion available to the human body?

To be quite honest I don't think Sonnon has quite the picture that IMA's have. He's a nice bridge though.

Ford Prefect is big on the rhetoric, so we can either do things the rhetorical, debate style or this can be a dialectic. I have no problem with either.

I am discussing movement in general, whether martial arts or not. Internal martial artists need muscles and nerves and connective tissue too. Externalists do as well. Externalists must understand relaxation, if they’ve ever contemplated speed and mobility and stamina. They must also understand whole body movement, if they’ve contemplated real power. So I still fail to see the distinction.

Now, as far as my baseball example, you didn’t address my point. Does the weight lifting and increased muscle size impact the performance? Sonnon says no. What’s your answer?

As far as the football example, my point wasn’t to say that weightlifting aids in injury recovery. It was to show its role in injury prevention and overall performance. Does his increased bulk and mucles mass have anything to do with his improved playing statistics and reduced injury?

You ask where the exercise is that connects the whole body. It’s in the targeted skill. You never stop training the targeted skill. Weightlifting is supplemental to that. Sonnon’s premise is that weightlifting has no effect on the targeted skill. If you want to improve your 3 point shooting with a basketball, do shoulder presses, and suddenly your range improves, what have you demonstrated? That’s not a made-up example. Do you need a martial arts example? Doesn’t Matt Hughes lift weights? Are you telling me it has nothing to do with his performance?

Fu-Pow

09-26-2006, 03:32 PM

I am discussing movement in general, whether martial arts or not. Internal martial artists need muscles and nerves and connective tissue too. Externalists do as well. Externalists must understand relaxation, if they’ve ever contemplated speed and mobility and stamina. They must also understand whole body movement, if they’ve contemplated real power. So I still fail to see the distinction.

External and internal are layers. Internal is a more subtle layer of the human movement. It's internal so its hard to see but can be felt. Excessive external development will inhibit this more subtle layer of movement, limiting potential.

Now, as far as my baseball example, you didn’t address my point. Does the weight lifting and increased muscle size impact the performance? Sonnon says no. What’s your answer?[quote]

Short term vs long term gain. It's an issue of quality of movement.

[quote]
As far as the football example, my point wasn’t to say that weightlifting aids in injury recovery. It was to show its role in injury prevention and overall performance. Does his increased bulk and mucles mass have anything to do with his improved playing statistics and reduced injury?

Your original statement: Tiki Barber, an undersized NFL running back, spent his first couple of season injury prone and fragile. His recent success is attributed to his training program, which bulked him up. How many professional athletes improve themselves through weightlifting? I can't see how you can argue that the isolationist exercises has nothing to do with it.

FP: His lack of injuries is attributed to his weightlifting but there's nothing really to prove that is the case.

You ask where the exercise is that connects the whole body. It’s in the targeted skill. You never stop training the targeted skill. Weightlifting is supplemental to that.

It can interfere with it as well depending on the biomechanics (aka jin) required. IMA has its own training methods to develop that jin and doesn't require weights. Some heavy object training is included but after the jin has been developed to a high level and doesn't use raw strength.

Sonnon’s premise is that weightlifting has no effect on the targeted skill. If you want to improve your 3 point shooting with a basketball, do shoulder presses, and suddenly your range improves, what have you demonstrated?

????

Do you need a martial arts example? Doesn’t Matt Hughes lift weights? Are you telling me it has nothing to do with his performance?

I don't know if he does or doesn't?

Your examples from professional athletics is kind of besides the point. Most pro athletes have short careers due to injuries. Maybe if the stopped lifting and did body weight exercises that more specific to their sport then they wouldn't suffer as many injuries.

The point is that you can't treat the body like a side of beef. There's more complexity their than we are aware of. IMA has it down but they lack the scientific lingo to nail it down. So just because IMA isn't using "scientific" lingo doesn't mean in practical terms it doesn't work. It's just that more complex models are only becoming available now.

FP

Dingo983

09-27-2006, 03:23 AM

"That and chi travels with blood, aside from going along the meridians. Blood, as well as the chemicals and nutrients that flow through the veins carries some of the chi of a living organism."[quote}

Wouldn't weightlifting create larger muscles, creating more blood flow, carrying more chi then?

"Excessive external development will inhibit this more subtle layer of movement, limiting potential."[quote]

In a abnormally large illegal steroid using bodybuilder, I definatley agree. In someone who lifts 4 times a week for 1/2 hour a day, I think stretching exercizes would cure that.

Let's be real. I, as others, are not disputing the importance of internal training. But a professional fighter/martial artist steps into a ring with Chuck Liddell relying on internal strength with no weight training to back it up. He would hand him his butt on a silver platter. Someone who lifts weights will hit/ fight harder than someone of the same skill level that doesn't. It's just real life.

Not only that but weight lifting has several health benefits such as weight loss, helps people suffering from wasting diseases and diabeties. It releases natural occuring GH making organ and heart muscle walls stronger. It also inevitably increases self-confidence and self-esteem and discipline. I don't see how something so positive and healthy for you could interfere with the internal arts.

RonH

09-27-2006, 06:04 AM

Wouldn't weightlifting create larger muscles, creating more blood flow, carrying more chi then?

If you expand the size of the blood vessels and are able to increase blood production, that would help, but it still wouldn't be as much as energy work exercises.

Fu-Pow

09-27-2006, 07:54 AM

Let's be real. I, as others, are not disputing the importance of internal training. But a professional fighter/martial artist steps into a ring with Chuck Liddell relying on internal strength with no weight training to back it up. He would hand him his butt on a silver platter. Someone who lifts weights will hit/ fight harder than someone of the same skill level that doesn't. It's just real life.

Look, there's definitely something to be said for a general conditioning regime. I myself do knuckle pushups, hindu pushups, I jog and I'm looking at adding some other plyometric and yoga type strength building exercises.

The Chen Taiji ancestors worked on farms and did their "conditioning" that way.

But here's the kicker. If you really know your "internal" then any confrontation you get in should last about 3 seconds, not 10 rounds. The exteral conditioning that you do should basically be for when you screw up.

No doubt Chuck Lidell is a good fighter with lots of experience. But if he did IMA's instead of the external style then he would be even better.

One reason that hasn't been pointed out yet is that you can actually train more in IMA then EMA. That's because it doesn't wear out your body in the same way. I went to a 2-day seminar on Taiji, 8 hours/day, and while I was a little fuzzy my body actually felt energized.

What this really boils down to is being connected through the usable range of motion. In external you are using too much, wasting alot. In internal you are using your joints, in concert, through their maximum USABLE range of motion. External will get you all twisted up, not allowing you to be "through", not allowing the internal layers to move independently of the external layers of the body. If this sounds too hocus pocus look at Sonnon's description of the double bag model that I posted.

Not only that but weight lifting has several health benefits such as weight loss, helps people suffering from wasting diseases and diabeties. It releases natural occuring GH making organ and heart muscle walls stronger. It also inevitably increases self-confidence and self-esteem and discipline. I don't see how something so positive and healthy for you could interfere with the internal arts.

Lifting weights is kind of an artifical way of moving. No doubt there are short term benefits but at what cost? You'd be better off to do movements that simulate functional motions. Otherwise you are just building an external "shell" around your body and limiting the natural counter motion of inside and outside.

Fu-Pow

09-27-2006, 10:09 AM

Upon further reflection I guess you could think about it like this. The body is like a water balloon. Inside of that water balloon is another water balloon (and probably more layers like those little russian wood dolls that stack inside of each other.)

The water balloon are not totally independent of each other because they are tacked down to each other at certain points. However, they can slide over each other to some degree. If you twist up the outer water balloon then you are twisting up the inner water baloon as well. You essentially are pinching off the water in the balloon from connecting with the ground. You create a pinch point or leverage point and the balloon topples over.

However if you move in the right way you are moving the balloons such that you don't create any pinch points. The water goes "through" to the ground. When you strike in a certain direction you get the additive effect of all the balloons moving in the same direction...like a pulse.

I think that looking at the body as a series of water filled balloons (or tensegrity structures) is more useful than looking to static structures. We are 90% water after all and sometimes Taiji is referred to as water boxing.

If we think of the body as one layer and in terms of units then we get into trouble. We are not letting the inner part any degree of freedom and our balance is much worse as a result.

Dingo983

09-27-2006, 12:09 PM

TaiChiBob

09-27-2006, 12:40 PM

Greetings..

Perhaps we shouldn't be evaluating internal and external as separate issues.. what is more appropriate, in my opinion, is the optimum balance.. we can each cite examples that favor our particular perspectives, but.. as much as is possible, we should look at an overall perspective and find the most beneficial path according to our goals.. some people are willing to sacrifice long-term health for short-term glory.. others, will choose a path with staged progression toward healthier "autumn years".. right and wrong are arbitrary values according to personal standards.. One of the great mistakes is to compare ourselves to extreme examples of our perspectives.. MMA champs, olympic body-builders, diminutive masters with disproportionate powers, mystical monks, etc.. setting realistic goals is a good way to avoid confusion.. realizing, of course, that there are no destinations.. just new points of departure..

Personally, i work with my own body weight.. or, i don't exceed my body weight in my weight or resistance training.. my mentor said that if i can control my own weight, i can control those that oppose it.. endurance, range of motion, and knowledge (technique, anatomy, physics, energy, medicine, etc...) have served me well...

Be well...

RonH

09-27-2006, 01:37 PM

Hey, the mute and blind monks of old that can knock you out at 50 paces by spitting a broken piece of a peanut shell at you are just awesome.

:-P

Fu-Pow

09-27-2006, 02:19 PM

Greetings..

Perhaps we shouldn't be evaluating internal and external as separate issues.. what is more appropriate, in my opinion, is the optimum balance.. we can each cite examples that favor our particular perspectives, but..

Agree. Internal and external are both necessary for "internal." The problem is when you start to develop the external to the exclusion of internal training. You limit your potential. You are creating a very strong shell that cannot be supported by whats inside.

as much as is possible, we should look at an overall perspective and find the most beneficial path according to our goals....some people are willing to sacrifice long-term health for short-term glory.. others, will choose a path with staged progression toward healthier "autumn years".. right and wrong are arbitrary values according to personal standards..

Great point. Short term gains can be made from weight lifting, no doubt about that....but as I stated before.....at what cost? External development is short term...quick and dirty. However, you begin to realize that you can not sustain this over a lifetime. The injuries begin to accumulate and you can either to more of the same to try and counter your injuries. For example, if you have a rotator cuff injury you can build up the muscles around it to imobilize the joint.....OR you can find a new way of moving that would have prevented that injury in the first place. Its a non-issue when you are young and strong naturally...it becomes an issue as you age. I look at my kung fu teacher (external Choy Lay Fut) and I look at my Taiji teacher, same age but my Taiji teacher is a lot better off physically and can still toss me around like its a joke. He's still improving and would put most if not all challengers to shame. My kung fu teacher still tries to use his body like he did when he was 20 and he doesn't posses the raw strength anymore so his techniques are not as effective. He's still in good shape relatively speaking compared to most lazy ass americans but his body is falling apart.

One of the great mistakes is to compare ourselves to extreme examples of our perspectives.. MMA champs, olympic body-builders, diminutive masters with disproportionate powers, mystical monks, etc.. setting realistic goals is a good way to avoid confusion.. realizing, of course, that there are no destinations.. just new points of departure..

Great quote.......I'm gonna steal that.

Personally, i work with my own body weight.. or, i don't exceed my body weight in my weight or resistance training.. my mentor said that if i can control my own weight, i can control those that oppose it.. endurance, range of motion, and knowledge (technique, anatomy, physics, energy, medicine, etc...) have served me well...

Be well...

I think that body weight is a great tool for developing external along with internal. Its sets a limit and forces you to do real functional movements to move your body around. The more you can incorporate internal principles into the external development the better.

Fu-Pow

09-27-2006, 02:31 PM

"But here's the kicker. If you really know your "internal" then any confrontation you get in should last about 3 seconds, not 10 rounds. The exteral conditioning that you do should basically be for when you screw up."[quote]

I suppose someone could say if someone really knows external, any confrontation should last about 3 seconds. I think it depends on several factors such as the skill level and fitness of your opponent, weight, etc. A 3 second fight is something to strive for but expect it to last longer.

In a match between IMA masters the level of skill will be decided in seconds. That's how effective it is. Its like the nuclear bomb of kung fu. Nei jia arose out of Wai Jia. Its newer technology. Why use the old stuff when the new stuff is readily available?

"Lifting weights is kind of an artifical way of moving. No doubt there are short term benefits but at what cost?"

Being healthier,stronger, more confident etc. Seems more long term as long as someone has the discipline for it. Look at Jack Lalane (spelling). He is in his 90's. Still lifting weights.

Weight bearing exercise in general definitely has benefits with weight or not. If you look at Jack Lalane he does a whole variety of other body weight exercises in addition to lifting weights. He definitely doesn't have any internal skills either and not a martial artist, so for your average person lifting weights is probably OK. If you want proficiency in IMA then no. Which was the original question of this thread.

Scott R. Brown

09-27-2006, 04:29 PM

Hi Fu Pow,

You are one of the most misinformed persons concerning weight training I have come across in a very long time. All you are doing is repeating very OLD and absolutely FALSE platitudes.

I have been lifting weights for 30 years and have never suffered a serious, debilitating or long term injury secondary to the weight training!

You are fantasizing concerning your 3 second fight theory. It is not the IMA that would allow anyone to win in such a short period of time; it is strategy and tactics. Even the inexperienced can win a fight that easily! About 20 years ago I met a young man who asked me if I could give him just one technique that would be very effective. I gave him a technique along with the strategy how to use it. He had occasion to use it sometime later and BEHOLD!!! The fight was over in about 1 second! He was completely untrained, had never been in a fight, was not very big or athletic, but WAS a weight trainer. Your opinions are not based upon facts they are based upon common IMA fantasy!

The benefits of weight training far outweigh the detriments. Especially since the detriments are primarily due to carelessness and improper training technique. Anything done improperly can be detrimental. You are repeating falsehoods concerning weight training. You do not know the slightest thing you are talking about.

The benefits of weight training ARE sustained over a life time as long as one continues to train. The assertion that weight training creates ”…a very strong shell that cannot be supported by whats inside,” could not be more false. This is just another ill-informed platitude. There is NO truth to the assertion that weight trainers are weak inside. Weight training does not occur within a vacuum.

I have been weight training for over 30 years. I have been practicing yoga for over 35 years. I have practiced internal and external MA for over 30 years. I am as strong and fast as I have ever been and will most likely be so for another 30 years. I am 5’9” 185-195#. My resting heart rate is 48-52. I am 47 years old and I can still perform the full splits and the plow pose putting my knees over my head onto the floor. I have suffered horrendous injuries; none of them secondary to external MA. It is because of my strength and flexibility that I am still able to train safely and effectively in the MA. My strength and flexibility have PROTECTED me from incuring more serious injury and have assisted me in recovery from those injuries.

Everything you have stated is your personal uninformed opinion ONLY and NONE of it is based upon any kind of facts! Your comments are old and I mean OLD IMA platitudes commonly used to justify/cover up physical weakness.

Fu-Pow

09-27-2006, 05:08 PM

I have suffered horrendous injuries; none of them secondary to external MA. It is because of my strength and flexibility that I am still able to train safely and effectively in the MA. My strength and flexibility have PROTECTED me from incuring more serious injury and have assisted me in recovery from those injuries.

You just undermined your whole argument.

Everything you have stated is your personal uninformed opinion ONLY and NONE of it is based upon any kind of facts! Your comments are old and I mean OLD IMA platitudes commonly used to justify/cover up physical weakness.

I'm not impressed because you are older and/or have trained longer. If you train incorrectly you can spend a whole life time and accomplish nothing. You might know more "tricks" but its no indication of priniciples understood.

I have trained in TKD, Aikido, Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut (for 10 years) and IMA for the same amount. I have sparred in various formats and against boxers. I have come to the conclusion through my own hands on experience that IMAs are head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to martial arts. They are an evolution out of external, they transcend and include external.

It is for this reason that I have completely abandoned my previous external training and am focusing solely on Taiji training now. Its where its at.

I may not have the perfect "scientific" argument for why it works, it just does and it conforms to a more natural way of moving the body. The potential for martial development is higher.

But here's the catch....it takes longer to develop. Its not quick in dirty...it won't make you "ready for the street" in 8 weeks. It takes years of dedicated practice and study using the CORRECT METHODS and conforming to the CORRECT PRINICIPLES. It takes a lot of "untraining" of bad habits. Most people are not willing to go through that to reach the next level so they just work with the natural attributes that they have and try to make them better. I don't fault anyone for that.

Is it any wonder that there have been so many converts to IMA out of EMA? Why the conversion? Because its like comparing a rusted out old oldsmobile to a bmw sportcar. Maybe I should water down my comments to be more diplomatic but it is the way through my own experience that I have come to see things.

Scott R. Brown

09-27-2006, 07:07 PM

TaiChiBob

09-28-2006, 04:59 AM

Greetings..

It occurs to me that we might benefit from people's examples of "weight training".. i weight train, but i don't weight train for bulk or to have an impressive body.. i train to enhance my skills.. i use the Total Gym about 1/2 hour a day 5-6 days a week, i use a Pilates Ball another half-hour per day.. i have a set-up where i use old bicycle inner-tubes secured to a frame to provide resistance through most of my postures and transitions (most bicycle shops have bunches of old inner-tubes).. i lay on the floor and watch a half-hour of TV with a 25 lb. sand-bag resting on my abs and shift to obliques on alternating days.. one day a month, i try to carry the sand bag for 8 hours without setting it down.. i can lay it in my lap, rest it on my shoulders, balance it on my head, just don't put it down.. it's an enlightening exercise.. i push the heavy bag (100lbs), working on nuances of balance and minimium effort, out to 45° or more.. another enlightening effort.. one of my favorite exercises for tendon and ligament work is "flat-plate" exercises, where i use stove-burner covers and go through a series of twists and turns rotating my arms through a huge range of motions while balancing the plates on my palms and keeping the plates parallel to the ground (we do this in class, too).. with 25 lb sand bag balanced on my head, i do low single-whips 10 times each side and "side-to-sides" as much as my aging knees can bear.. three time a week, i spend about an hour with "pole-shaking" exercises.. i have an old 50 lb heavy-bag that i rest in the crooks of my arms like "pushing" while i shift my weight through differing transitions.. unless you figure how to utilize some internal energies, this doesn't last very long.. then, a day or two of surfing/swimming keeps it loose.. many of these are done while watching the news or discovery channel, or some such entertainment.. before bedtime, i try to devote a half-hour to flute (shakuhachi) playing, as a breath meditation.. alternating between Nprmal Abdominal Breathing and Reverse Abdominal Breathing.. That's about it for my personal physical training.. how about you guys? I still teach 3 days a week, train with different players in varying levels of pushing from the subtle and nuanced, to the robust and physical before or after class and a separate Monday session.. i spar/roll whenever the opportunity arises (once or twice a week)..

Perhaps, we might mis-understand each other when we say "weight training".. i think of my regimen compared to someone pumping hundreds of pounds and still consider we are both "weight training".. maybe sharing our perspectives we could move closer to a common ground.. we would be better served in trying to find an optimum that develops us to our highest potential rather than reject notions that we haven't given a fair measure to understand or experience..

Be well..

spiralstair

09-28-2006, 07:52 AM

Hi Bob,
Try this one. Teach yourself to balance on the ball on both knees, keeping a vertical line between the knees and shoulders through the torso.
Then take a 'weight' that is easily held in one hand(like a dumbbell) and pass it around your waist like a basketball.
Next make circles in the air with the weight in front of your abdomen. Because of your position balancing on the ball, the weighted movement will cause your tan tien to 'circle' in an easily percieved fashion.
I have used this 'external' method to give students a rapid entry into one of the fundemental internal methods, that of circling the tantien. Like most of the 'internal' , the hardest part is 'gettting the feeling', so shortcuts on the path are to be appreciated, no matter where they originated.

TaiChiBob

09-28-2006, 08:38 AM

Greetings..

spiralstair: You have a lot of faith in my abilities, LOL.. i can visualize what you suggest, and it makes perfect sense.. doing it on the other hand, well.... i'll give it a go.. i've tried the balancing thing and.. it's a booger, now you want me add weights?:eek: actually, the visualization makes it worthwhile, i'll let you know how it goes..

Thanks for the suggestion.. Be well...

Fu-Pow

09-28-2006, 10:59 AM

Hi Fu Pow,

Please do not confuse my comments as a criticism of IMA. I enjoy and appreciate the practice of IMA. I believe and adhere to IMA principles of training and many elite athletes do as well.

They do?

But they DO NOT adhere to IMA training principles while avoiding weight training. I am merely countering the prolific misinformation you are writing concerning weight training. You simply do not know what you are talking about! Any “well-educated” athletic trainer, coach or layman would read your comments and laugh. There is a mountain of scientific evidence to support weight training as a part of a well rounded fitness/athletic program.

But not as part of an internal martial arts regimen. The priniciples of each may have there merits but they do not mesh.

You are propagating IMA fantasy that is counter to established, scientifically proven athletic training principles and that is why I am responding. I am not interested in changing your opinion. It is already clear to me your mind is made up. You are caught in the IMA fantasy. I am commenting in order to not let your misunderstanding of weight training principles and their results negatively influence novices who may consider your comments worth listening too.

I know alot about anatomy, tissue development and yes, weightlifting. My background is in biology.

I have not undermined any of my argument. Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that my serious injuries were NOT due to MA training. It is beneficial to try to read ALL the information as stated in order to avoid inadvertently ignoring the parts of the argument that refute your statements. Only two serious injuries (I just remembered one other) were “sports” related and both were due to not following proper safety precautions. That is, not performing the actions according to proper training technique or procedure. [/quote}

You need to be clearer in what you write because you never explicitly said that. You said "my injuries were never secondary to my external MA training." Whatever that means and plus you didn't say anything about how your awesome strength and flexibility prevented your "horrendous injuries."

[quote]
As I have already stated many times, any activity if performed improperly becomes dangerous and subjects one to possible injury. If I had not had a good strength base to begin with my injuries would plague me to this day nearly, 30 years later. Neither injury affects me to this day. The other serious injuries I have suffered were work related.

Movement is movement....whether you are working or playing.

Strength training was also part of the recovery process from all of these injuries. It is due to my weight training and flexibility I am still able to train. Other individuals without adequate flexibility AND strength would have suffered greater injury, one of which would have been a broken neck.

Your opinion.

When you have trained a few world class athletes then maybe you could possibly have something worth listening too concerning weight training.

How many world class athletes have you trained?

All I have stated, as well as Ford, is well documented and proven thousands of times by athletes all around the world for thousands of years. You are proposing individuals disregard proven principles and listen to you. This would be foolish since your comments are contrary to reason and the evidence! No one need take our word for it. All it takes is a little bit of research. You cannot refute the scientific evidence other than to ignore it. If your method of athletic training was valuable elite athletes would all stop weight training and follow your methods. They do not! Right now all you are repeating is falsehood that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be falsehood through repeated scientific experimentation.

As an aside, Tiger Woods has been weight training for a few years now. It has not negatively affected his golf swing. He is arguably the greatest golfer of all time. If he had found the weight training to hinder his golf game he wouldn’t do it. He has even inspired other golfers to try weight training.

Dude, your whole argument is one big appeal to authority. WTF do you know? Why should anyone listen to you or the so called experts?

I know first hand that what you are saying is totally bunk. I don't have to go on pubmed and look up articles to support my opinion. I have experienced "internal strength" with my own senses. There's a scientific explanation there, no doubt, but you don't have it and neither do the so called physiology experts.

Why should I listen to you over my Taiji teacher who has massive internal skill and can readily demonstrate and who has never lifted a weight in his life?

Think about Taiji for a second, the whole principle is not to use raw force against force...what is weight lifting? Using raw force against the force of gravity to make your muscles hypertrophy. Taiji can be extremely hard or extremely soft but you have to learn to relax first and not fight force with muscle, it has to be a whole body affair...you become hard through extreme softness. Its a totally different way of moving.

IMO you are doing a huge disservice to beginners by stating that weight training is an acceptable adjunct to IMA training. Until you can separate "internal strength" from "external strength" then it is going to cause a lot of confusion.

It is obvious to me that you have zero understanding of internal principles.

Stick with your weights and external MAs and you'll do fine but don't confuse the two.

FP

Fu-Pow

09-28-2006, 11:26 AM

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gaylehatch.com/Olympics10.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.gaylehatch.com/Olympics10.html&h=2464&w=1632&sz=5148&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=rrPHnYeLN3ra3M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclean%2Band%2Bjerk%26imgsz%3Dxxlarge% 26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3D N

Now here's a great example of how weightlifting conforms to internal principles. :rolleyes:

Dingo983

09-28-2006, 12:53 PM

Looks like the chi ball is in your court now Scott...............................:D

Ronin22

09-28-2006, 02:11 PM

Don't know if he's a IMA but just someone's experience

Lisa Zimmerman
NFLPLAYERS.COM
10/17/2003

Wide receiver Amani Toomer is now the New York Giants' all-time leader in receiving yards, a record he reached earlier this season, in game two against the Dallas Cowboys. It is quite a feat considering the names that have come before him, including the great Frank Gifford whom he passed for the record. It is also quite an accomplishment considering that Toomer never thought he'd be with the team long enough to get near, let alone set, such a record.

After being drafted in the second round out of the University of Michigan in 1996, Toomer's ensuing production was not what had been anticipated. In his rookie year he suffered a season-ending knee injury after playing in only seven games. He spent 1997 and 1998 mostly on punt return duty.

Then in 1999, things clicked into place and he not only became a full-time starter at wide receiver, but became the first Giants receiver in 11 years to gain more than 1,000 yards in a single season. He also set a Giants record for most receptions in a season with 79.

"After my third year, I didn't think I was going to be here," he admitted. "They had used a lot of draft picks for receivers. Every time you're in a situation like that you have to evaluate your opportunities and make something out of those, and I didn't. It was a lot of nights staying up thinking, what's wrong? I realized my opportunities weren't going to be as many, so I decided every time I got an opportunity I had to show what I could do.

"Before that it was like a mental block and I couldn't get over that hump. Then after the third year I thought, I don't feel comfortable here, I'm probably not going to be here next year, so I'm going to do the best I can so the next team that picks me up I'll be ready. Instead, I played good here and they kept me on."

One of the things that helped him both mentally and physically was Kung Fu, which he first started studying in 1997. Initially he was daunted by the very different demands it placed on his body as compared to football. However, he quickly embraced those differences and has used them to his advantage.

"It augments (playing football) in some ways and in some ways it's its own entity. The stances build up my legs. I had torn my ACL and my leg wasn't coming back strong and I lost a lot of flexibility so that helped me. And as a wide receiver you're getting press technique so you have to find a way to use your hands and your energy to ward off defenders."

As far as the mental side, that part was a lot simpler.

"I just really enjoyed it and it was a positive atmosphere," he said. "If you're playing football, a lot of the time if you're not playing up to the standard they think you should be at it's not always a positive atmosphere. Kung Fu was positive and encouraging."
The result? Well, in addition to establishing the aforementioned Giants receiving record, Toomer is now a black belt.

And, if you were wondering what happened to Toomer's long dreadlocks, which he sported for years, well it turned out he was a sort of reverse Samson, the biblical figure who derived his strength from his long hair. For Toomer, it proved to be a health hazard.

"I had a big helmet and when I put it on it was OK. But then my hair would get wet," he laughed, "and it would mat down a little bit. Then my helmet would get a little play in there and then I would get hit. I ended up with two concussions and I never had a concussion before."

Now the hair is gone and he hasn't had a concussion since. So, Giants' fans can be confident; in more ways than one, Toomer has a good head on his shoulders.

fiercest tiger

09-28-2006, 03:13 PM

Can someone put a clip of internal strength using weights or what the whole arguemnbet is about to show the differences are>?

Garry

Dingo983

09-28-2006, 03:45 PM

From my angle the argument is some people think weight training interferes with the internal arts and the long term effects of weight training are detrimental to your health. Others (such as myself) think weight training compliments the internal arts, making them more effective and the long term effects of weight training are benificial to your health.

Also the people who agree with the 1st train of thought are wrong.
The people who agree with me are right. ;) :D

Fu-Pow

09-28-2006, 04:12 PM

fiercest tiger

09-28-2006, 08:16 PM

Hi Dingo,

I myself believe the same thing as you, as long as the weight training is for functional strength and works the 3 planes (3 circle in YKM) as we call it. The weighted ball is like a medicine ball and works the core muscles and gives you strength, flexibilty, balance in the full range of movement which i believe weights work more 1 plane more so. I maybe wrong but from my studies and homework the ball training and medicine ball is one of the best tools for explosive internal power from external and internal. Add chi kung and pad workout and you have some flow and force happening!! Many systems use weights even if its the long pole shaking etc its still weight training combined with breathing just like normal weight training i think not much difference apart functional movement and application of what you train for.

That being said just normal weight training for strength is good for bone and muscle also long as its done right its a very important means to longevity especially when one gets old.

regards
Garry:)

Blacktiger

09-28-2006, 09:50 PM

Bob, your version of weight training sounds more like a "structural diagnostic" rather than an attempt to make your external muscles stronger. Adding weight to your routine can reveal where you are "stuck" or "holding on" with the outside and not letting things get "through."

FP

Ring training is good for pointing this out as well. Staying relaxed is essential while performing the movements:)

fiercest tiger

09-29-2006, 12:09 AM

Im not sure but i think i read an article about the shaolin rings that if used with punching hard with force it can have damage of the connective tissue, dont quote me on that though but the weight and force traveling then snapping the arm may not be that good unless you are doing tension sets with the rings and slow movements?

Garry

CFT

09-29-2006, 02:44 AM

Next make circles in the air with the weight in front of your abdomen.The circles are parallel to the body? If I was looking straight at you, I would see you trace an "O" around your abdomen?

You're not making a circle away from and then towards your abdomen, kind of like a rowing action?

Scott R. Brown

09-29-2006, 02:46 AM

Hi Fu Pow,

Yes, professional and elite athletes use identical principles to those practiced in IMA. They do not call them by the same names of course. IMA principles are universal principles. They are not unique to IMA and neither were they originated by IMA. Professional and elite athletes practice relaxed, slow movements to rehearse muscle memory, enhance their proprioceptic sense, and identify flaws in form. They visualize their movements during relaxed meditative states as well as prior to their events. They also work on performing their skills at full speed while focusing on developing a relaxed intent. That is what “being in the zone” means, to have a unified body and mind in the midst of chaotic surroundings and intense pressure situations. Athletes have been using these techniques for at least the last 40-50 years now. Hmmmmm, I wonder it IMA practice any of these techniques???? I THINK SO!!! Any person who has taken the time to research elite training programs would have discovered these training protocols are actively practiced.

Are you implying that these protocols only have merit when practiced within an IMA program? If so you are once again incorrect. These techniques, primarily the mental ones which are truly the inner or internal training, precede the known IMA. These principles were practiced at least as far back as 400 B.C. A Taoist treatise called Nei-Yeh, Inward Training (literally nei= inward, yei= work) which precedes the Tao Te Ching, lists many of these techniques and encourages the practice of proper eating, drinking and physical movement, but primarily proper cultivation of the inner mind. However, these internal techniques are not unique to China. They are part of traditions from nearly every culture. Don’t take my word for it though and don’t bother doing any research either. I know your Tai Chi master has all the answers.
_____

In the circumstance you have mentioned it was unnecessary to be clearer in my comments. I stated what I meant and what I meant is what I said. If you did not understand my meaning then either please ask what I mean or use a dictionary. I have found them to be very useful when I do not understand a word. I used one 4 times yesterday!

I stated:

I have suffered horrendous injuries; none of them secondary to external MA.

The word “secondary” can mean: “as a result of”. So using different terms the sentence says, I have suffered horrendous injuries; none of them AS A RESULT OF practicing external MA.

I do not need to go into greater detail to demonstrate how I recovered from my injuries more swiftly because of my strength and flexibility. The evidence is found in the MOUNTAIN of scientific evidence regarding this topic that I have repeatedly mentioned and that you prefer to ignore. Strength and flexibility are well-known factors in reducing the severity of injuries due to strengthened body integrity and increased elasticity of the joints and muscles. A flexible muscle/tendon/joint will stretch further before it becomes injured thus reducing the opportunity for injury to occur and decreasing the overall damage in the event injury does occur. Increased muscle tone secondary (as a result of) to strength training reduces the severity of damage due to resistance to stresses that would cause damage. For example: if you had to lift 100# and I had to lift 100# I am less likely to suffer injury since I am conditioned to lift such a weight. If the weight was so great that it caused injury I would suffer less injury due to my conditioned ability to lift greater weight than you. The increased blood flow to muscles that occurs as a result of weight training will reduce the time for recovery from injury. There are other factors involved I will not take the time to mention. However, I will point out that if one were to engage in a REAL and serious altercation, receiving strikes and kicks, my ability to receive and tolerate such abuse would far exceed yours. I would suffer less injury and the injuries I did receive would cause much less damage.

Don't try to worm out of this comparison by using your powerful Chi, listening skills or the agility you developed by practicing slow movements. A REAL fight is dirty and to the death. Not these little school yard duels or bar fights most people mean when they say a REAL fight. A REAL fight involved head bashing, clubbing, stabbing and the most dangerous weapon, SUPRISE. When your Chi protects your skull from fracturing when being hit from behind by a baseball bat, then you will have something to talk about!

Returning to healing from injuries:

These are not my opinions, they are well established FACTS well known by those educated in such matters and easily learned about by anyone who is willing to do a bit of research. Which we know is NOT you! Here is a good idea: how about going to talk to a physical therapist. Don’t take my word for it. Ask a person whose job it is to treat injuries. I know what you will learn because I have worked as the exercise trainer at a large physical therapy facility.

I have not trained world class athletes, but I have trained WITH national class athletes. Two of which were my best friend and his father, both national class athletes. I was a state class athlete myself. I have worked with physical therapists, trainers of professional football teams, helped my friend with his Master’s thesis in exercise physiology, and I worked with and have known Chuck Liddel’s trainer for about 10 years.

My point is there are no professional or elite athletes that train strictly according to your espoused methodology while thousands, if not millions, of these individuals have trained according to the method I have espoused. Professional and elite athletes have one primary goal in mind, TO WIN!!! They will do whatever it takes to WIN!!! If the methodology you espouse worked it would be used. SOME of the principles of Internal training ARE used BECAUSE they DO work. They are not used as a replacement for the well established methods. They are used as an adjunct.

When thousands of athletes have trained according to your method and more of them win than those who have trained using the well established and scientifically determined protocols then perhaps maybe you might say something worth listening too. Until then all you are is an ill informed individual adhering to incorrect, tired, old and outdated IMA platitudes.

It would also be of some benefit to research a bit more into the history of some of the IMA. Not all of the training protocols involved ONLY the slow dance-like movements used in today’s Tai Chi. There have been many EMA protocols used in IMA training in the past. Some are still used today.

Scott R. Brown

09-29-2006, 02:49 AM

Fu Pow continued,

Dude, your whole argument is one big appeal to authority. WTF do you know? Why should anyone listen to you or the so called experts?

I know first hand that what you are saying is totally bunk. I don't have to go on pubmed and look up articles to support my opinion. I have experienced "internal strength" with my own senses. There's a scientific explanation there, no doubt, but you don't have it and neither do the so called physiology experts.

Why should I listen to you over my Taiji teacher who has massive internal skill and can readily demonstrate and who has never lifted a weight in his life?

Think about Taiji for a second, the whole principle is not to use raw force against force...what is weight lifting? Using raw force against the force of gravity to make your muscles hypertrophy. Taiji can be extremely hard or extremely soft but you have to learn to relax first and not fight force with muscle, it has to be a whole body affair...you become hard through extreme softness. Its a totally different way of moving.

IMO you are doing a huge disservice to beginners by stating that weight training is an acceptable adjunct to IMA training. Until you can separate "internal strength" from "external strength" then it is going to cause a lot of confusion.

It is obvious to me that you have zero understanding of internal principles.

Stick with your weights and external MAs and you'll do fine but don't confused the two.

Wow!! Quite a diatribe!! Why should anyone listen to the experts? Hmmm that is a good question! I wish I could come up with a good response to that one! Boy, I really thought I was making a good argument for my position until you hit me with that zinger! I just don’t think I can come up with a good argument for that one! I am just too dumbfounded by how foolish that statement is!!

The question here is, “How do you reason with the unreasonable?” The answer is. “You can’t!! You are unreasonable and it is impossible to reason with you. But then that is not my purpose here. It is to protect the innocent and unknowing from your ridiculous comments.

Let me see here.

1) I am only appealing to authority.

If MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence is appealing to authority, that is, the authority of the scientific method, then I guess you are correct for once. Science has only given humans, better food, better living conditions, better medicines and medical care, longer and better quality of life, air travel, long distance communication via a little box you hold in your hand or a bigger box you have on your desk or in your lap, hmmmm and I think a lot of other things too. Are you suggesting that exercise physiology is the ONE area where the scientific method does not work? Gosh I should have listened to that little nobody on the internet and ignored the MOUNTAINS scientific evidence. I have seen the light!!!!

You have what is called “Willful Ignorance”. That is someone who simply does not want to be bothered with facts. They believe what they want to believe because it makes them feel good and don’t want deal with reality.

I tell you what have your Tai Chi master engage in a few MMA events or better yet, a few prison fights. When he wins them all hands down with his MASSIVE Chi power, he will convince the world that his method is the very best. That is how these things are determined. Not by making empty claims and demonstrating simple tricks to the unknowing and gullible masses under controlled circumstances. These tricks can be awe inspiring until their secret is understood. Effectiveness is demonstrated in the real world, not in a Tai Chi class. Feel free to live in your fantasy world, but don’t encourage the innocent to join you! You may come to regret the Karmic debt.

spiralstair

09-29-2006, 03:00 AM

CFT,
Both are good, done in each direction. Also then the circle around the whole abdomen including around your back. Basically you are mimicing the main internal rotations of the tan tien, externally. Because of your instabile position on the ball your abdomen musculature will 'mirror' your movement. Then you get off the ball and repeat just the internal abdomen movement without any weights or arm motion in one of your 'standing' postures.
Good luck.

Dingo983

09-29-2006, 04:17 AM

No, Scott. Don't tell me........You mean this master is not for real?:eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGoOG1I_i7c

spiralstair

09-29-2006, 06:30 AM

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA! That's unfair!!!:D

No really, you don't have to search YouTube for ridiculous manifestations of external training.... just go to any fitness club/gym in the world, and watch the majority of 'practitioners' doing their weight training equally under the delusion that it's 'real'.
Yeah man, it's real alright. Really bad for your health and your longevity. Of couse they're not wearing silk PJs....:D

Fu-Pow

09-29-2006, 08:32 AM

Scott-

Your the one that said "chi", not me. I never brought it up. That's called setting up a straw man so that you can knock it down. When people can't argue effectively against IMA they point to the most bizarre exponents of it who claim SUPERNATURAL abilities. No one has claimed that here, certainly not me, I am one of the most skeptical of people, antireligious if anything.

The truth is that you don't really have anymore of leg to stand on than I do. We're both arguing from OPINION based on our own experience.

There's two big obstacles that I see in people understanding and acceptance of IMA as unique and legitimate:

1) The initial explanation of HOW they work relies on outdated, pseudo-scientific paradigms.

2) 99% of people have not encountered people that have true understanding of IMA priniciples and can demonstrate them.

As far as #1 goes I see a lot of parallels with Chinese medicine. Initially, western science-based allopathic medicine rejected Chinese medicine as non-scientific hocus pocus. However, eventually some wise doctors saw that some of the treatments were very effective, equal to or more so than there western counterparts. However, did they totally abandon western scientific thinking? No, they still operated within that western scientific paradigm and began to unravel the effective from the non-effective. Today Chinese medical treatments, the ones that have proven efficacy are widely accepted and growing in acceptance. Some treatment has been ruled out as bunk. Its the same with IMAs. There's a lot of metaphysical hocus pocus associated with it (mostly perpetuated by those with little skill)but the core of how it works can be explained within a scientific paradigm.....its just no one has been inclined to do that.

Which leads me to point #2......

IMA isn't even on the radar of sports physiologists. How many people who do martial arts have encountered a high level IMA practitioner let alone the small percentage of the population that makes up elite athletic trainers and sports physiologists? The scientific studies on Taiji mostly have to do with epidemiology like "Less hip breaks in Seniors who do Taiji." The conception that most martial artists have of IMA is "kung fu done slowly." Like some kind of meditative dance or something. The ones that claim to do "combat IMA" tend to be ones that utilize the Taiji movements but don't do them with the correct body mechanics rendering them much less effective then they would be with the original correct body mechanics. Those are the same ones that say "lifting weights for IMA" is the way to go. That's because lifting weights does make their "IMA" better because their using raw strength to power their techniques. Then they say, hey look there's no difference between IMA and western strength training, when indeed there is.

So that's the impass Scott. To have a "rational" discussion people need to be willing to let go of the argument that because the explanation of how IMA worked was initially described using mystical sounding terminology that it some how renders them ineffective.

And secondly, people need to get "in touch", literally, with people that really understand and can readily demonstrate IMA principles in action and how it differs from the western conception of how the body works.

Until those things happen this impass will continue to exist.....and people will go for the more "scientific sounding" training.

Scott R. Brown

09-29-2006, 08:49 AM

Hi Dingo983,

You were supposed to say: “The chi ball is in Fu Pow’s court now!!” ;) :D

I’m on a landline connection now so I will have to watch your clip later.
____

Hi TaiChiBob,

Nice workout! I like it!

My training program varies constantly, it usually changes every 4-8 weeks. It is determined primarily by my work and family responsibilities. I may stay with a program for 6 months though as well. At the moment I lift weights 3 days a week for 30-45 mins. I am about to increase that to 6 days a week for 30-45 mins. My workout will be:

Day One: 2 chest exercises and 2-3 back exercises, 2 pull-up exercises and one rowing exercise, and one anterior deltoid exercise, usually dumbbell presses.

Day Two: step ups high and low versions, deadlifts either traditional or stiff-legged deadlifts. Sometimes I add hack squats with a bar or dumbbells, and calves. When I have my machine set up I will also perform leg curls exercises.

Day Three: standing rows, and shrugs, sometimes I add dumbbell laterals, bar dips and incline dumbbell curls. Sometimes I add a second curl exercise or hammer curls and a superset of lying triceps extensions to close grip bench press followed by pullovers each one right after the other before resting.

I use a progressive program, meaning the weights progress from lighter at the beginning of a cycle to heavier and the end. I stick to 3 sets of 10 repetitions work sets with 2 sets of warm up per exercise. One minute between exercises and alternating exercises. So for example: I will do one set of pull-ups rest a minute, one set of bench then rest a minute then back to the pull-ups etc. 4 exercises takes 30 mins.

I perform stretching/yoga 2-5 days a week 1-1 ½ hrs. depending upon how much time I have.

I train boxing, aikido, push hands, ju jitsu, and grappling with my son 1-3 days a week.

3-5 days a week I perform a specialized form called Ba Chuan, 8 Fists. This is not the original name. The original name I learned over 25 years ago and I have determined it was not the original name. I do not know the original name. I have never found anyone who has heard of it. I gave it the present name myself. It is an exercise that contains 8 sections and each section has 8 sections. It involves moving down the floor 4 steps usually using a front kick to initiate the movement followed by a strike or combination of strikes. The strikes may be open hand, closed fist or elbows. Each section of the 8 smaller sections involves 8 different types of strikes. The strikes in order are as follows, horizontal fist, vertical fist, uppercut, roundhouse, back fist, overhead strike, hanging fist, and chop or hammer fist. Each strike is performed for the four steps forward then a set of change over strikes is used to reverse direction and the next strike is performed for 4 steps. This continues until all 8 strikes are performed. That is the end of the first set. The basic sets are as follows.

Set 1: single strikes
Set 2: two strikes alternating hands
Set 3: three strikes alternating hands
Set 4: two strikes with the same hand
Set 5: simultaneous strikes with both hands at the same time
Set 6: strike with the lead hand, parry with the rear hand followed by another strike with the lead
Set 7: elbows
Set 8: open hand strikes

One complete exercise involves 248 kicks and over 500 strikes. I perform this exercise twice. The first set of 8 Fists is performed according the traditional pattern. The second set of 8 Fists I perform as I choose at the moment. I may perform all 8 sets openhanded, or all with elbows or I may perform various punching combinations similar to boxing combinations, etc. Sometimes I use roundhouse kicks instead of front kicks. When the exercise is performed twice there are 500 kicks and over 1,000 strikes thrown. It takes me from 12-16 mins per complete set of 8 Fist depending upon how fast I chose to move. This is a skill and aerobic exercise combination.

In addition I perform 3-10 sets boxing rounds shadow boxing or on the bag and from 120-360 of about 6 other types of kicks depending upon the time available and my condition at the moment. On occasion I train with weapons, but I have not had the time for awhile. The weapons I use are the short staff (my personal favorite), bokken (wooden samurai sword) and a wooden jian.

I also use a Concept II rowing machine when I feel like using another aerobic activity.

Scott R. Brown

09-29-2006, 09:14 AM

Scott R. Brown

09-29-2006, 09:53 AM

Oh yeah!

I forgot abs! Hanging legs raises 3 sets. Legs straight and raised all the way up to the bar, 15-20 eeps. Then 3 sets of decline sittups. About 45* decline. Sets of 15-30 reps 3 days a week.

spiralstair

09-29-2006, 11:16 AM

Jeeze Scott, careful with the hanging leg raises, man. You can give yourself a SERIOUS hernia doing them all the way up to the bar on a day your 'chi' is low.
Then afterwards it's not just your chi that's low....:eek:

TaiChiBob

09-29-2006, 11:42 AM

Greetings..

Hi Scott: LOL, i'm just an old guy gettin' by.. but, thanks.. your regimen would devour me.. i'm just tryin' play smart and avoid past mistakes, still nursing old battle scars..

Keep the faith, and.. Be well..

Dingo983

09-29-2006, 01:05 PM

"2) 99% of people have not encountered people that have true understanding of IMA priniciples and can demonstrate them."[quote]

Just curious. Do you consider yourself the 1% who has encountered these people or one of the people who can understand and demonstrate IMA principles?

Fu-Pow

09-29-2006, 01:19 PM

Hi Fu Pow,

As usual you have missed the point by not paying attention or reinterpreting the conversation according to your own prejudices. The comments about Chi are meant as a dig towards your foolish devotion to your Tai Chi Master’s opinion as opposed to SCIENTIFIC FACT!!! You brought up his great wisdom. I am merely ridiculing you for believing his tripe over established and proven FACTS!!

You haven't provided any hard scientific facts, you're speaking in total generalities.

You cannot prove that thousands of years of training protocols are meaningless because someone discovered or demonstrated the effectiveness of internal protocols. I have already stated the internal protocols are used by elite athletes.

Really, like who? What pro, elite athletes study IMA? Where did they learn it?

I have already stated I respect IMA and practice many of the principles (since they are not the sole possession of IMA). I have repeatedly stated I am responding to your repeated misinformation regarding weight training and your foolish refusal to accept established scientific findings.

What findings? You want to point to this mountain of evidence and yet you provide not one reference. Again...generalities.

Believe what you want! I don’t care! What I am saying is do not spout off falsehoods about topics you are ill-informed about.

I know a lot about weightlifting. I've lifted and done extensive reading on it. Its never done me a **** bit of good in the martial sense. Its a waste of time for martial arts or just about any other athletic endeavor.

Weight training is NOT detrimental to anyone if performed according to proper technique and protocols. It enhances performance and improves health and well being when used properly. It helps to reduce the chance of injury and increases the recovery from injury. It DOES NOT shorten life or reduce martial effectiveness. When practiced properly it lengthens life and increases martial effectiveness.

Now you are trying to overstate my case so you can knock it down. I never said that it would "shorten life or reduce martial effectiveness." What it does do is increase risk of injury and limit internal martial arts potential.

People want to say "external and internal training" are the same thing, therefore they can be trained in the same way. Pro-athletes are internal, powerlifters are internal.....that's because, they, like you don't understand how they are different. We are all made of cells, tissues, nerves, blood etc. but there's a lot of different things that you can do with that starting material.

Informed weight trainers DO NOT think that working on the parts will MAGICALLY improve the whole.

First of all what is an "informed" weight trainer? You yourself said that these protocols are 1000's of years old. So what's changed? What defines an informed weightlifter.

Weight training does not give someone a pretty exterior while internally they have a mass of diseased or dysfunctional organs. Weight training is part of a well rounded training program.

The argument is whether weightlifting will inhibit internal development. The answer is yes, it will. They are different ways of moving to develop different skill sets. It would be like having a golfer train like football player or vice versa. IMA demands a certain set of skills, supported by a certain kind of body mechanics...different from that of external.

Those that think otherwise don't understand the difference between internal and external....hint: it has nothing to do with chi.

This constant refusal or yours to accept simple basic FACTS that have been repeatedly demonstrated for thousands of years and whose evidence is easily discovered invites ridicule. The only reason I continue to entertain this discussion with someone of your clearly limited understanding is to counter your misinformation and as a form of training for myself.

What a bunch of bull$hit. Its to stroke your own ego and win the argument. Let's call a spade a spade.

I am not trying to change your opinion. You will enjoy the fruits of your foolishness. It is your choice and I respect your right to behave foolishly. However, others may need to read a counter to your foolishness lest they think it has any real merit.

Your not going to change my opinion....you can keep on pumping that iron to develop your "peng" body mechanics. I just wonder how long you can delude yourself that you have internal skill?

Have a nice day.

FP

fiercest tiger

09-29-2006, 02:18 PM

There was a clip of a push hands guy that challanged this taiji master and the guy kept hitting him and the taiji master still didnt get to bounce him away or anything. I think it was the Chen Taiji successor or something!!?

What is an internal skill?

Garry

Scott R. Brown

09-29-2006, 05:19 PM

Greetings..

Hi Scott: LOL, i'm just an old guy gettin' by.. but, thanks.. your regimen would devour me..

LOL!! Hi Bob,

Actually I was thinking the same thing about your workout. I was quite impressed with your self discipline and commitment. I guess we tend to think less of what we are familiar with.

I am used to it so I guess I dont think much of it, LOL, and it is actually alot less than I used to do. Time and responsibility restrictions interfer as I am sure we all experience.

imperialtaichi

09-29-2006, 08:00 PM

...and the guy kept hitting him and the taiji master still didnt get to bounce him away or anything.... What is an internal skill?

Hello Garry,

Obviousely his Qi was protecting him so the master does not care if he gets hit. Not to mention the guy probably would suffer internal Qi damage and died 49 days later. Much like Kill Bill's "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique".

Cheers,
John

(man, I shouldn't joke about these things...)

fiercest tiger

09-29-2006, 08:59 PM

Hi John,

Hows things bro, im all for the testing of peng jing or the like and i really enjoy the info you and bob give for the CTS etc. But im still finding it very hard to agree with reality based type work and bouncing people if you catch my drift?

So what im trying to understand from all this info and this thread regarding strength "Internally" so far i havent seen anything from anyone yet that hasnt much to do with good leverage, technique, timing etc.

So my question what is internal strength or power! Can it be combined with external training such as weight which i believe is part and parcel to have both yin and yang combined as a balance.

I think shaking sticks, weighted balls, kettlebells and many other traditional methods are for functional strength as well helps flexibiltyb and range of motion.

Garry

Dingo983

09-30-2006, 01:37 AM

Fu-Pow
"2) 99% of people have not encountered people that have true understanding of IMA priniciples and can demonstrate them."[quote]

Just curious. Do you consider yourself the 1% who has encountered these people or one of the people who can understand and demonstrate IMA principles?

Imperialtaichi
Keep joking, it keeps you young. You have my corney, sarcastic sense of humor. I was hit by that Five point palm exploding heart technique once. Luckily it was by someone who just started studying it. His master said it won't take effect for approximately 30 to 60 years. And the black palm print on my chest came off with soap and water. Whew!

Fiercest Tiger

"So my question what is internal strength or power! Can it be combined with external training such as weight which i believe is part and parcel to have both yin and yang combined as a balance."

(disclaimer) The following is my opinion...
Is there an internal power? Sure. Meditation, IMA's will sharpen the mind, focus your body's energy. Kind of a workout for the mind and spirit. So I feel if you are physically stronger, you have that much more power to focus your energy with, resulting in more damage at your impact point. I don't know any scientific equations to apply to this, but combining mass, speed, torque, with focused energy is bound to create some serious damage to your target. I look at internal energy partially as a energy (maybe bio-electrical or bio-magnetic) that flows through the body. It probably has an effect on physical and mental health if your bodies energy is "out of wack"(medical term). I also look at internal power as determination, persiverence, positive attitude, self control, will power etc. Internal power will give you the power to mentally last when your body is screaming quit. That is where the balance of the physical come in. The better shape your body is in (such as more muscle mass) the longer it will take for your mind will give up. The better shape your mind is in, the longer it will be before your body gives up. Don't buy into the magic or super human powers of an old man moving his hand 3 inches and his student flys 20 feet across the room (over exageration?). Remember, Dragonball Z is just a cartoon and House of Flying Daggers is not a documentary. Either way I think IMA training is an important aspect of martial arts training but should be balanced with external arts and strength training for better health and optimum results.

Fu-Pow
I saw part of the video you posted for burningmonk in the thread A definition of internal strength. Now to be fair I only saw the first few minutes because I'm on dial up, but to me it looked like his student was being nice and assisting his master push him. I would like to see a skeptic or someone neutral in place of the student. I'll watch the whole video later and retract my statement if it changes my mind.

spiralstair

09-30-2006, 04:54 AM

Hi Guys,
Back when I lived in the states I did an accelerated wieght training program at a facility outside of Boston that did most of their business with the local pro athletic teams, training to increase 'explosiveness' in their athletes. This explosiveness that they were seeking I came to understand was like an 'externalist's' fa-jing, a whole body, muscle and weight derived acceleration to produce power. (F=MxA)

I taught a few of these guys a simple free style push hands so that I could get a sense of how much power they could produce without the traditional 'internal' perspective and training. What I found out was that they were extremely strong, very adept at adapting to incoming angles of force,(especially the Football defensive backs), and could have made mincemeat out of MOST of the Internal Martial Arts players I have encountered. Their power felt very 'present' and available. With my eyes closed, I knew I was playing with a very strong human, no doubt.

I would contrast this with my experience free style pushing with the top 'Internalists', of whom I have been fortunate to meet a half dozen or so, one of whom isn't even a IMA practitioner, but an 'External' Master.
There the feeling of their touch was something else alltogether, not at all like the pro athletes. It felt more like I was crossing hands with a warm iceberg, most of the weight and mass 'hidden' somewhere else, beneath the surface. With my eyes closed, I wouldn't even guess what I was playing with, but I did know 'it' was just "playing" with me, thank god.

To me then there are real differences at the 'highest' levels between the external and internal, but I must emphasise 'highest', for the other fact that really stands out in my experience is that the external athletes were 'bringing it' at a very young age(mid-twenties) compared to the internal practioners, the youngest of whom was I think at least 45 years old.

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 04:55 AM

Hi Fu Pow,

There's two big obstacles that I see in people understanding and acceptance of IMA as unique and legitimate:

1) The initial explanation of HOW they work relies on outdated, pseudo-scientific paradigms. .

Please explain to us what a “pseudo-scientific paradigm” is and how it misunderstands IMA?

IMA are a function of the mind directing the body in a different fashion than is commonly used in EMA. It is not that complicated to learn, but does take some practice to use effectively. A principle of IMA is to apply as minimal a Yang force as necessary to an opponent’s vulnerability (Yin) in order to overcome him. It is the use of strategy and tactics combined with an understanding of human biodynamics and momentum that allows one to accomplish this. This is the meaning of the dictum, “Use 4 oz. to overcome 1,000 lbs.” It does not mean an internal adept is able to lift or hit with the force of 1,000 lbs. It means that the force one uses is directed to a weakness in the opponent in a strategic manner, thus creating an effect “similar” to 1,000 lbs of force. 4 oz. of force does not actually result in a literal 1,000 lbs. of force. Because he understands the dynamics of momentum and leverage an IMA adept does not “require” excessive strength to overcome an opponent. That does not mean he MUST NOT have excessive strength, only that it is not necessary to accomplish his purpose.

One of the basic principles of Taoist thought is that energy is to be conserved and not wasted needlessly. Tai Chi in particular seeks to adhere to that principle when applying it to MA. It isn’t the avoidance of strength or force that is called for, it is that a judicious use of force and strength is used in order to preserve energy. Once one understands this desire to preserve energy within Taoist thought the principles of Tai Chi become more understandable.

2) 99% of people have not encountered people that have true understanding of IMA priniciples and can demonstrate them.

So 99% don’t know what they are talking about but your “Taiji teacher who has massive internal skill and can readily demonstrate and who has never lifted a weight in his life” does? And we should take your word for it why? It is more likely you don’t understand what you are seeing and experiencing. Internal skill is a combination of mind and body unification, biomechanics and a specific type of strategy and tactics. Strength does not inherently interfere with any of this. One may fairly say that in many cases extra strength is not necessary, but to state that the strength which results from weight training is a hindrance is foolishness, completely untrue and a misunderstanding of the IMA principles.

The applications that your instructor applies all occur within a specific context. It is a controlled environment. All one need do to neutralize your instructor’s application is to change the context of the exercise without telling him. That means change your biodynamics or momentum. You will note that when engaging in push hands exercises there is a specified stance and movement prescribed. This is for the purpose of learning listening skills and applications by simplifying the movements. Limitations are place upon how one stands and moves because there at just too many variations possible when free form is allowed to occur. Free form push hand exercises are for advance students, but mostly still require a well defined context. Change the context and applications become effectively neutralized. This is a principle of strategy and tactics and applies to all forms of combat not just hand to hand, but wars as well. Any technique, application or tactic one uses works within a specific range of contexts. Once the context is changed the application becomes ineffective. The more skilled the practitioner the more likely they have the flexibility to accommodate to the change in context by transitioning to another application. Then once again the opponent must change the context to overcome that application. This is when skill and experience becomes necessary to overcome an opponent. One of the marvels of Aikido is that each technique may be easily transitioned to another technique as the context of the opponent’s biodynamics and momentum change. This is valuable since not everyone responds in an identical manner when a technique is applied.

The foundation of Internal MA is the mind, but mind directs the body to achieve a purpose. In Tai Chi this purpose is to defend oneself expending as little energy as possible, both mental energy and physical energy. Preservation of energy is a basic principle of Taoist thought. That is what cultivation and preservation of Chi is all about. “Internal” in the context of Taoism and IMA means “from the mind”. Physically manifested power does not come directly from the mind however as in the projection of Chi across distances. Internal training teaches one how the mind directs the body in a more efficacious manner reducing, not eliminating, the need for strength. The body is the tool of the mind, but the mind still requires the power generated by the body. Since Force = Mass x Acceleration, one may increase force in three ways. Increase acceleration, increase mass, or both. It is the manner in which the mind directs the body that creates power, but the power is still generated from the body.

Mass may be increased through strength training. Increased muscle mass is preferable to gaining mass by adding fat because muscle mass is a more efficient use of the gain in mass for generating power. This is because increased muscle mass also increases ones acceleration and reduces the overall amount of energy required to create the same amount of force. This is demonstrated by my example of you and me lifting 100#. Since I am conditioned to lift 100# I am able to lift that amount more easily than you while using less energy. So in your example of training in Tai Chi for 8 hours without becoming fatigued, someone better conditioned, such as myself would be able to train for perhaps 12 or 16 hours before suffering the same amount of fatigue as yourself.

People want to say "external and internal training" are the same thing, therefore they can be trained in the same way. Pro-athletes are internal, powerlifters are internal.....that's because, they, like you don't understand how they are different.

Who wants to say they are the same thing? Who says they can be trained in the same way? How do I not understand they are different? It is more likely you don’t understand what I am saying, not that I don’t understand what I am saying.

What defines an informed weightlifter?

A well informed weightlifter is one who understands the most beneficial training protocols. Those are the ones that have been scientifically studied and determined to be the most effective manner of increasing strength for a specified purpose.

Some of the protocols have been improved over the 2-3,000 years of weight training, but the most basic principle of weight training, that of progressive resistance, goes at least as far back as Milo of Crotona, 536 BC.

I never said that it would "shorten life or reduce martial effectiveness." What it does do is increase risk of injury and limit internal martial arts potential.

The argument is whether weightlifting will inhibit internal development. The answer is yes, it will. They are different ways of moving to develop different skill sets.

What are the definitions of “limit” and “inhibit”? A “limit” is a “boundary” and “to inhibit” is “to interfere with”. Within our context “to limit” then means there is a level of skill one cannot go beyond, while “to inhibit” means it would create greater difficulty in acquiring a certain level of skill. Both reduce martial effectiveness. So IN FACT you DID say weight training would “reduce martial effectiveness”, since both of your WRONG assertions would accomplish just that!

Once again weight training performed properly REDUCES chance of injury; it does NOT increase chance of injury other than to say that a more active life style creates greater opportunity for injury to occur. If one is afraid of the opportunity for injury to occur than one must effectively avoid doing anything, even IMA since activity increases the opportunity for injury to occur over no activity at all. So following your reasoning one should avoid all activity to avoid the chance of incurring an injury!

What actually occurs, as I have repeatedly stated, is that a well toned and strong musculature reduces the chance of injury.

While weight training does in fact require some limited coordination it is NOT performed for the purpose of developing skills, therefore it DOES NOT develop a different set of skill sets. That is NOT its purpose. While all MA training DOES develop skill sets. It is the skill sets of IMA that you are implying weight training interferes with. You have mentioned NO example where this actually occurs other than your inadequate understanding of weight training principles and your misinformation regarding the benefits/detriments of weight training.

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 05:01 AM

Fu Pow continued,

I know a lot about weightlifting. I've lifted and done extensive reading on it. Its never done me a **** bit of good in the martial sense. Its a waste of time for martial arts or just about any other athletic endeavor.

No you do not know much about weight training and it is very apparent to those of us who DO know a lot about weight training that you do not know anything about weight training. It is foolishness to conclude weight training is useless due to your own inadequate experience and lack of understanding of proper weight training protocols. It has never done you any good in martial arts BECAUSE you don’t know much about it. Weight training is a benefit to not only ALL athletes, but non-athletes as well. This is a well established scientific fact. If it were not a benefit and indeed interfered with athletic endeavors athletes would not waste their time and energy on it. Use your brain!!!

Really, like who? What pro, elite athletes study IMA? Where did they learn it?

I have already provided a brief list of the uses of Internal principles by athletes. I am not responsible for your inability to read what I have written. Do a little research for yourself. I did not intend to imply nor do I believe I stated elite athletes practice IMA as a general rule. As I have previously stated Internal, when referencing either internal martial arts or internal cultivation, involves the utilization of the mind. Reread my previous post to review some of the protocols used.

You want to point to this mountain of evidence and yet you provide not one reference. Again...generalities.

You haven't provided any hard scientific facts, you're speaking in total generalities.

These comments are like the man who refuses to believe France exists because he has never been there! It does not matter that he knows people that have been there. It does not matter that history books demonstrate France exists. It does not matter to him others have seen photographs of France. To him France does not exist because he refuses to look. Take some responsibility for yourself! There is ample scientific evidence demonstrating the benefits of weight training. You can blame others for your own refusal to look for this EASILY found evidence, but it only reveals the depths of your “Willful Ignorance” for all to witness!

spiralstair

09-30-2006, 07:24 AM

RonH

09-30-2006, 07:33 AM

So my question what is internal strength or power! Can it be combined with external training such as weight which i believe is part and parcel to have both yin and yang combined as a balance.

I think shaking sticks, weighted balls, kettlebells and many other traditional methods are for functional strength as well helps flexibiltyb and range of motion.

Well, if you go with a common metaphysics viewpoint, everything is mental energy, which originates from a "source", call it God, akasa, whatever. This means that the ultimate expression of internal power is the degree of focus both your conscious and subconscious minds can give at any one time and the level of energy you can generate/manipulate/sustain production of over a given time frame, since everything is made of energy that's just in different forms and states of existence. Along with this viewpoint, it means that the same thing that is the cause of the existence of every thing around you, is the same thing that is that cause of the existence of you because it's the same source.

Thinking this way gets you over the hump of isolationism of things in the mind and can help the mind (both conscious and subconscious) from falling back into the 'I can't do it' trap. Even if one didn't believe in metaphysics, it's still a good viewpoint to boost self-confidence, so you don't perform any self-sabotage. But, it's important to keep in perspective the absolute view of isolationism and what isn't. Within the metaphysical viewpoint, the source of creation/source of a thing's current existence is what's shared by everything. But, the cause of a thing should never be confused for the thing itself. That is where things are differentiated.

RonH

09-30-2006, 07:46 AM

Sometimes I feel like this board is a lot like 8th grade... I am still trying to answer the teachers question(TBK's thread starter), while two other guys are engaged in a spitball fight across the room. Guess who the class is paying attention to?

Anyway, when I cross hands with a high level internal player it feels to me like they are accessing mass that comes from somewhere 'else', there is a feeling of a larger mass 'under', like if you lay your hands on top of a huge boulder and direct your force 'in'. Your force is simultaneously directed 'away' from your hands, absorbed, and if you are sensitive to it, you can feel the 'size' of the mass beneath you. To me internal strength is found 'under', connected to by accessing the sub-concious while awake. One of the values in TCB's CTS examination is that the CTS is a primarily sub-concious controlled aspect of the body, and in learning to 'feel' it, one learns to access the sub-concious connections.

"Awake while sleeping, sleeping while awake."

Now Ford and other 'scientists' don't even bother going there, since you guys don't have any proof yet for conciousness, anyway. Please don't start on the sub-concious. Just put up some more PBs on the Squat and Bench, and leave the 'feeling' explorers to the weird $hit:)

I would also like to warn others that, while I am for this type of training at times (drawing another's energy in and using it -- it'll only take a small amount of your energy stores to take from another's source and you'll have some more after deflecting/neutralizing), there needs to be care to not absorb/retain another's emotional content connected with their energy.

As a natural empath, I can tell you that taking on the emotions of another (good or bad feelings) is far worse than anything seen in scifi/fantasy. I spend a lot of time during each day keeping people out of me. Look at Springer. That is just a small portion of disgusting and derranged people out there and there are many that are worse. Looking up techniques for shielding is a good suppliment to this type of training.

Either you reaffirm repeatedly that you are not sensitive to emotional energy absorbed by another or the emotional content never enters you. Many don't say in shielding instructions, but taking down and putting up a new shield is good to be done on a daily basis.

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 12:17 PM

Hi spiralstair,

Sometimes I feel like this board is a lot like 8th grade... I am still trying to answer the teachers question(TBK's thread starter), while two other guys are engaged in a spitball fight across the room. Guess who the class is paying attention to?

Welcome to the internet! ;)

Anyway, when I cross hands with a high level internal player it feels to me like they are accessing mass that comes from somewhere 'else', there is a feeling of a larger mass 'under', like if you lay your hands on top of a huge boulder and direct your force 'in'. Your force is simultaneously directed 'away' from your hands, absorbed, and if you are sensitive to it, you can feel the 'size' of the mass beneath you. To me internal strength is found 'under', connected to by accessing the sub-concious while awake. One of the values in TCB's CTS examination is that the CTS is a primarily sub-concious controlled aspect of the body, and in learning to 'feel' it, one learns to access the sub-concious connections.

I understand what you are feeling. It is based upon biomechanics however. One thing that many Tai Chi players miss is that it is necessary to have contact with an opponent in order to feel this ” mass that comes from somewhere 'else' ”. Since one cannot experience this same feeling without physical contact the “feeling” is based upon material existence and NOT some other type of immaterial energy, i.e. Chi. One may argue that it is Chi infusing the body and I would not dispute this assertion, since exactly what Chi is has yet to be determined. However, at this time, it is just as likely that Chi is how we choose to interpret inexplicable physical phenomenon as it is some immaterial energy. It is even possible that it may be a combination of factors as yet unrecognized.

When engaging in play with high level internal practitioners remember that the play occurs according to a specific context that is predetermined. If a player is unmovable according to a specific context and he is using some immaterial energy to maintain his immobility then he would also be immobile when the context is changed. In other words, if someone unexpectedly came up behind him before he could "get set", or approached him from the side, or a number of individuals applied force at the same point or at different points he would remain unmovable. Even in demonstrations when this does occur it is applied within a specified context dictated by the player. That is, he gets to set the rules of the game and therefore all he is doing is displaying a trick of biomechanics that the observers do not understand or perceive. It is when immobility may be maintained at all times under all circumstances including spontaneously occurring circumstances that one may consider an immaterial force such as Chi has been effectively accessed. If getting physically "set" is required then it cannot be an immaterial energy accessed.

In the absence of passing this test we must conclude that the force of resistance is determined by biomechanics!

Now Ford and other 'scientists' don't even bother going there, since you guys don't have any proof yet for conciousness, anyway. Please don't start on the sub-concious. Just put up some more PBs on the Squat and Bench, and leave the 'feeling' explorers to the weird $hit:)

Let us be careful not to assume what others think and understand or what their motivations might be, and then criticize according to those assumptions, otherwise we become like the 8th graders you have chosen to criticize. See how easy it is to fall into the trap of being critical of others while acting in the same manner ourselves? ;)

I would also like to warn others that, while I am for this type of training at times (drawing another's energy in and using it -- it'll only take a small amount of your energy stores to take from another's source and you'll have some more after deflecting/neutralizing), there needs to be care to not absorb/retain another's emotional content connected with their energy.

As a natural empath, I can tell you that taking on the emotions of another (good or bad feelings) is far worse than anything seen in scifi/fantasy. I spend a lot of time during each day keeping people out of me. Look at Springer. That is just a small portion of disgusting and derranged people out there and there are many that are worse. Looking up techniques for shielding is a good suppliment to this type of training.

Either you reaffirm repeatedly that you are not sensitive to emotional energy absorbed by another or the emotional content never enters you. Many don't say in shielding instructions, but taking down and putting up a new shield is good to be done on a daily basis.

Hi RonH,

It is only necessary to use a mental shield if one absorbs the emotional energy around them rather than allowing it to pass through them. This absorption occurs because we allow it to occur. We may not understand we are allowing it to occur, therefore it appears that it is something that is happening TO us rather than something we have allowed to occur to us. A “mental energy shield” is a mental device or tool we use. It should not be an end in itself. While helpful, it tends to allow us to avoid making the necessary changes to our perspective that would eliminate the necessity for a mental shield.

The emotional energy of others affects us because we allow it too. Our experience of life is not just what happens to us, it is strongly determined by how we interpret what happens to us. How we interpret events and circumstances is influenced by our temperament which is what we are born with, but it is also influenced by our conditioning. Both natural temperament and conditioning may modified allowing us to become unaffected by the negative emotional energy of others.

spiralstair

09-30-2006, 12:41 PM

Scott,
I said in my previous post free style push hands. In other words, moving. Your experience tells you my experience was based on biomechanics, even though you get my experience wrong. Sort of like an eyewitness without the I, no?

And Scott, oh pious one, please do not paint me with your broad IQ condemming brush, I was kidding in my post to Ford. That's what the smiley means.;)

Have a nice weekend.

fiercest tiger

09-30-2006, 01:27 PM

Hi Dingo,

Thanks for the reply, i definetly see what you mean regarding meditation or chi kung.

Scott,

Great info and lots to think about, cheers mate!

This has become a excellent thread keep it up, we need clips now guys to demonstrate the difference??

Garry:D

RonH

09-30-2006, 02:46 PM

Hi Hi RonH,

It is only necessary to use a mental shield if one absorbs the emotional energy around them rather than allowing it to pass through them. This absorption occurs because we allow it to occur. We may not understand we are allowing it to occur, therefore it appears that it is something that is happening TO us rather than something we have allowed to occur to us. A “mental energy shield” is a mental device or tool we use. It should not be an end in itself. While helpful, it tends to allow us to avoid making the necessary changes to our perspective that would eliminate the necessity for a mental shield.

The mental shield serves at minimum 2 purposes. You have the practice of impregnating energy around you, which gives you better groundwork in more advanced energy work. As well as creating a barrier around you, most people that do this don't realize they are performing a form of self-mind control. That's why I said you need to reaffirm it. Your impregnating within the energy that makes up you the idea of you not absorbing emotional content into yourself. This creates a "double barrier". This also helps during times when you forget about putting up a shield. You are already performing self-control in not absorbing the emotional content of another, even if it is a partial success. Continued practice with both strengthens your discipline exponentially. There are ways to get around both these barriers, including brute, emotional force, but that's not where this thread is going.

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 03:50 PM

Hi spiralstair,

Scott,
I said in my previous post free style push hands. In other words, moving. Your experience tells you my experience was based on biomechanics, even though you get my experience wrong. Sort of like an eyewitness without the I, no?

Thank you for explaining your comments with more precision. Misunderstandings are a part of life and I appreciate your willingness to respond by clarifying your meaning. Perhaps you missed my previous comment stating that free style push hands occurs within a “limited” context as well.

It is more likely I have a clearer understanding of what you experienced because I am familiar with the “feeling” you experienced and have studied the process that occurs more deeply. It is possible I am wrong, however one of the means I use to determine whether my insights are valid is whether in the context of understanding them I am also able to understand the experiences expressed by others.

Principles (Truths) do not change over time or they would not be Truths, however the context in which we understand them and how they are applied DOES change over time. When our present understanding is found to be built upon a foundation of lesser understanding then we may use that as a measure of our present understanding. In other words, I understand your experiences according to your context because I have experienced the same feelings according to similar contexts. As one studies, explores and practices one finds their understanding of TRUE principles deepens. The principles may appear to change but they do not. They only apply according to an different, "expanded", context.

Free style push hands still occurs according to a specified set of rules. The "context" that one adheres too, even in free style, defines the efficacy of the techniques practiced. Discover the weakness of the principles, change the context and the opponent is easily overcome. The only variable is if the opponent has enough experience to change the context of your context change. This is what occurs within any push hands practice anyway. You use your listening skills to sense your opponent’s weakness and then exploit that weakness. This IS changing context. Free style push hands only expands the context but, it is still a specific (limited) context. This is a well known strategy used through out the ages by all innovative generals such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Wellington, Sun Tzu. It is simply, determine your opponent’s weakness and exploit it.

Observing an opponent's context/weakness in order to exploit it is also what occured in the old days when a competitor went to a MA school to challenge the Master. He must first fight a few of the senior students. This gives the seniors and Master the opportunity to evaluate the opponents skill level and observe his applications in order to more easily over come him. By identifying his context and exploiting the weaknesses an opponent is more easily overcome.

It is not necessary for you to accept my comments out of hand. They are easily testable by anyone and will be demonstated to be true according to ones own experience. If one attempts to apply these principles and they do not work, it is because of their limited skill level and understanding of the principles. Under this circumstance just keep them in mind until your skill level and insight increase and then try again. Eventually, they will be proven a valuable part of your MA knowledge base. And you got it all for free too!!:D

And Scott, oh pious one, please do not paint me with your broad IQ condemning brush, I was kidding in my post to Ford. That's what the smiley means.;)

Smilies are also commonly used to deflect a return of hostility for hostility given when one chooses to ridicule others. To make insulting comments and then think that a smiley covers up hostile intent is a bit of wishful thinking.

You have clearly reduced your present comment to your, self-described, 8th grade level and you once again used a smiley as if to indicate your insult is just, “all in good fun!” This of course demonstrates my point that smilies are commonly used to avoid having to take responsibility for making insulting comments. It would be more appropriate to avoid making the comments in the first place, thus avoiding confusion and a hostile return for your hostile intent. Regardless you have still demonstrated a willingness to join us in the 8th grade and my point is well made!

It is easy to get drawn into what some would consider childish behavior isn’t it? I am not claiming immunity from this condition, but then I am not condemning you for it either, just stating your comments are "The pot calling the kettle black!" Please take note if you wish to take a superior tone in the future and to avoid appearing hypocritical!

You have a good weekend too! ;)

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 03:53 PM

HI RonH,

The mental shield serves at minimum 2 purposes. You have the practice of impregnating energy around you, which gives you better groundwork in more advanced energy work. As well as creating a barrier around you, most people that do this don't realize they are performing a form of self-mind control. That's why I said you need to reaffirm it. Your impregnating within the energy that makes up you the idea of you not absorbing emotional content into yourself. This creates a "double barrier". This also helps during times when you forget about putting up a shield. You are already performing self-control in not absorbing the emotional content of another, even if it is a partial success. Continued practice with both strengthens your discipline exponentially. There are ways to get around both these barriers, including brute, emotional force, but that's not where this thread is going.

I am not sure I understand you. Are you agreeing with my comments, clarifying your comments, but disagreeing with mine, or agreeing with mine while clarifying yours?

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 03:55 PM

Scott,

Great info and lots to think about, cheers mate!

This has become a excellent thread keep it up, we need clips now guys to demonstrate the difference??

Garry:D

Hi Garry,

Thank you for the kind words my friend!

RonH

09-30-2006, 05:11 PM

HI RonH,

I am not sure I understand you. Are you agreeing with my comments, clarifying your comments, but disagreeing with mine, or agreeing with mine while clarifying yours?

What I wrote could be seen as all of the above at the same time. However...I would choose "clarifying my comments, agreeing with you in part and adding a additional support structure method that can be added regularly to one's routine because of personal preferance purposes."

Scott R. Brown

09-30-2006, 05:23 PM

Hi RonH,

Thank you for your reply. :)

That was how I interpreted your comments, but I wasn't sure. I agree with you and did not intend to imply that tools are not useful or of benefit if my comments appeared to assert that view. I tend to view principles and phenomena from as wide a context as possible and sometimes this may make it appear that I do not appreciate the the other contexts in which principles apply.

RonH

09-30-2006, 06:38 PM

When I read your response, I read it as a big "What?" and was trying desperately from letting the crept in smile get any further than just being a bit there.

spiralstair

10-01-2006, 02:28 AM

Scott's Truth:"It is not necessary for you to accept my comments out of hand. They are easily testable by anyone and will be demonstated to be true according to ones own experience. If one attempts to apply these principles and they do not work, it is because of their limited skill level and understanding of the principles. Under this circumstance just keep them in mind until your skill level and insight increase and then try again. Eventually, they will be proven a valuable part of your MA knowledge base."

Scott's Communication Technique: (easily testable by anyone and demonstrated to be true according to ones reading of any of Scott's posts)

Spray a whole lot of highfalutin words at the subject, with words like Truth and Principles (capitalized of course) liberally mixed in, implicitly establishing his Above position, and Hope to enlighten us lesser beings, whether we can Understand it or not, because maybe (probally not) someday we to can share the View from Scott's Position.

Thank you Scott, for your attempt at listening to the best of your current ability. Perhaps sometime in the future you will be able to read this post and see within it my Honest attempt help you through this common sticking point shown as an intellectual over-reliance on Wisdom usually seen in Librarians, not MAs who can crank out 3 sets of 15 Hanging Leg Raises. If you can't, "just keep them in mind until your skill level and insight increase and then try again."

Scott R. Brown

10-01-2006, 05:19 PM

Mrs. Irwin!!!!

spiralstair, is throwing spitballs at me!!
______

Hi spiralstair,

I was raised in a family of scholars. I was taught to speak, write and behave in this manner. To me this is everyday language. In my family this behavior is considered courteous. It is not a means of lording intelligence over anyone, it is the way I speak and write because I was raised to do so. I do not criticize you or anyone else for not using big or wise sounding words, why be critical of me because I do? Your attitude appears intolerant of someone who is different than you! Mine is not!

I apologize if you are offended by my writing style. I might point out that the “spitballs” that Fu Pow and I were throwing contained substance pertinent to the thread while yours have contained personal slights. Are we now reducing the conversation to the 5th grade? If so you can play by yourself. I have not returned your slights with slights. If you persist in behaving in such a manner you will only continue to embarrass yourself and of course further demonstrate my point of, The pot calling the kettle black! Only in this case the kettle is only a light grey while the pot is midnight black!

You have chosen to engage in the conversation and I have responded. When pushed some walk away; some push back. I don’t mind pushing back from time to time. What you have received is a consequence of your own 8th grade behavior. I merely pointed out, in a courteous manner, the inconsistency of your attitude . You chose to respond with greater hostility and further insult. Your last three posts have in succession gone down the “spiralstair” towards more childish behavior. I have not respond in kind you may have noticed.

I have not played your childish game. I have merely clarified my point regarding push hands with greater detail and pointed out your current behavior is identical to the behavior you have criticized. You appear to be attempting to characterize my comments according to a certain pattern. You have missed the pattern where I MIRROR the behavior that is presented, albeit with bigger more wise sounding words .;) In other words, I return what is served. I do not start it and I do not reduce the conversation by resorting to greater insults, but I am happy to participate!

You have been caught in the web of your own hypocrisy. I understand that can be embarrassing. You criticize what you consider my “LORDING” behavior. You have received comments in the form of mirroring behavior in return. You seem to be willing to detail what YOU consider to be the character flaws of others, but cannot seem to perceive your own character flaws. Since you felt free to detail the flaws of others, to avoid hypocrisy, you must allow others the freedom to treat your character flaws with the same directness. Otherwise it is YOU that appears to be lording YOURSELF over others!

Making mistakes in judgment is part of life. It is how we learn. None of us escape without making mistakes and embarrassing ourselves. Let it go and learn a bit more humility.

Try to have a better weekend by letting it go now!:)

fiercest tiger

10-01-2006, 06:10 PM

Hello Scott,

Maybe a little off topic what your view on strength from flexibilty pertaining to martial arts. Resistance type stretching how it benifits, stretches and well strengthen the muscles?

If this is not the right thread please feel free to PM me, BUT maybe this has some internal strength built into the strength from flexibilty?

Garry

Scott R. Brown

10-01-2006, 09:07 PM

Hi John,

There is a form of stretching protocol that uses resistance. It must be used judiciously to avoid injury. It is not necessary to practice in my opinion and does not provide any significant benefit. Others may disagree, but my experience has not demonstrated any significant “extra” benefit. Some have suggested it allows one to develop flexibility quicker. Since that is not a goal of mine I consider that an insignificant benefit.

I consider flexibility as helping to prevent injury rather than as a means of increasing strength, although a certain amount of flexibility is necessary in order to obtain optimal strength. Flexibility without some muscular strength may also compromise the integrity of a joint making it more prone to injury. Tight/stiff muscles are subject to a greater frequency of cramping and strains and exceedingly tight muscles are subject to greater frequency of tearing during muscular effort, especially the muscular effort that is a result of muscular contraction against the stretching force that occurs in MMA encounters.

fiercest tiger

10-01-2006, 09:22 PM

Thanks! :)

Scott R. Brown

10-01-2006, 09:31 PM

Ooops! Sorry Garry, I addressed you as John!!:o

I have replied to so many threads today I am getting confused, LOL!!:eek:

I'll get back to you later tonight!:)

fiercest tiger

10-01-2006, 10:55 PM

hehehe Im john only on Thursday nite!! ;)

spiralstair

10-02-2006, 01:44 AM

QUOTE=Scott R. Brown: The pot calling the kettle black! Only in this case the kettle is only a light grey while the pot is midnight black!

Whoa Scott, you are getting a little shrill there. No need to shout.

Don't worry, your trusty Wall Of Words Technique will soon clear the field of all opponents, myself included.

In my previous post I was trying to help you contemplate how others may perceive your posting manner, perhaps my ironic manner was too unkind.

A couple of IMA Principles and Truths to think about:
Invest in Loss
Don't retreat, don't resist

And one from my not-so-scholarly family:
Don't ever brag about how smart you are.

Good Luck

Scott R. Brown

10-02-2006, 04:56 AM

Hi spiralstair,

What you consider shouting I merely consider an alternative to quotation marks.

I do not perceive you or anyone else as an opponent. I am not competing here with you or anyone else.

There is no need to be ironic or indirect with me. It is always best to be direct with what you mean in order to reduce the opportunity for misunderstandings, which will occur anyway but hopefully less often.

I am well aware of how I may come across to some people. It is not really your place to enlighten me although since this is an open forum I respect your freedom of speech rights to say whatever you wish within the rules of the forum. I am not overly concerned with how others perceive me. For each one that is offended by my manner that are others that find value in some of the things I have to share as i receive value from the words of some and consider the words of others nothing special. It is the way of life and I accpet that!

My manner is what it is! Those that know me are not bothered by it, but I understand I may come off as arrogant or pompous to those who are unfamiliar with my personality style. Those that know me well know I am not that way, but they also know I won't take guff unnecessarily.

Other peoples feelings are not my responsiblity. I am not rude regardless if you consider it so or not. All I have done is mirror your own behavior back to you, but using more appropriate language, that is all. If you find some distaste in that I recommend you reflect upon your own behavior and attitude first and then worry about changing the attitudes or behaviors of others after you have your own house in order.

Someone will always eventually be offended no matter how pleasing to others we try to be. It is best to just be ourselves. Those who will be inclined to be our friends will be so and those who are not are no great loss. They will find others to whom they feel comfortable relating too.

Such is life!

Ford Prefect

10-03-2006, 06:29 AM

Ford:
No, suggesting that someone reread my posts with an open mind simply might prove useful.. your posts hold a particular point of view substantiated by your prejudiced references.. no different than mine, but.. i do consider your references and concede points worthy of the issues.. i do not suggest that, "If you had an open mind, you'd believe X", i suggest that there is evidence that supports my assertions, which, evidenced by your responces, you seem to have failed to comprehend or even read..

You said quite simply that ultimately, science and experience reveals the connective tissue as a higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist..

You cannot prove science said that. Now you are back-peddling because you know you are wrong.

Again, you are making blanket assumptions, unsubstantiated and as if you were an authority on the subject.. By all means, demonstrate that "no such studies exist".. and try to do it without requesting that i prove they do.. it's your claim, now..

lol! The fact remains you cannot prove your point. If you want to make a point, then prove it. You and I both know that you're not going to find a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal that measures increase in martial arts ability by your concepts. No matter how much back peddling you do, it won't change the truth. You lied. You made statements you can't prove. And now as a testament to your character, you are trying to put the burden of proof on me. Sad.

That is a bit of a reach, i was not the "first" to initiate conflict.. you entered a dialogue with condescending assertions, blanket unsupported statements, and statements contradicting previously identified reliable sources.. basically, looking for conflict.. you got it and now you whine?

So sad, Bob. The funny thing is that you probably believe this.

If you had come in here to discuss the differences in our understandings rather than asserting "bad information" or "dis-information" perhaps we would have had a more rational discourse.. i didn't "attack" you, perceive it as you will.. your insecurities are not my issue.. Really, "absolutely false claim", could you please back that up?.. and, rather than "take exception", i find it more beneficial to dialogue and find out what is most beneficial to my own goals..

I back it up with fact that you can't support said claim. Can you? I'm waiting for that study that proves your assertion that connective tissue proves to be a higher, more useful tool for martial artists.

Again, we both know you can't. Prove me wrong. Prove your claim correct.

It's quite simple, Bob. Prove your claim. If you can't, then please admit that the claim was based off your interpretation (a layman) of scientific data. Can you even point to studies where it states that connective tissue training is more important than resistance training in "athletes" in general? That would at least be something.

spiralstair

10-03-2006, 07:24 AM

Good thing this conversation never happened:

Adam: "Hey Eve, we're fully functional, bipedal beings, wanna go for an upright walk on only two of our limbs?"

Eve: "No Adam, there hasn't been a peer reviewed study yet that proves we can do that, so let's not even imagine it. I mean look around, all the other animals are on all fours, so let's stay down on the ground."

Adam: "Yeah, good thinking Eve, someday scientists will arrive and explain the world to us, one little reductionist bit at a time, so why bother investigating anything till then. If it ain't in a book or article, it can't be real."

Eve: "O.K. Adam, but let's take a bite of that fruit while we're waiting.":D

YiLiQuan1

10-03-2006, 07:28 AM

I'm still waiting to see someone flex their connective tissues...

YiLiQuan1

10-03-2006, 07:30 AM

Good thing this conversation never happened:

As cute as that comment was, there's a difference...

I can get up and walk across the room. There may be a debate on how, exactly, ambulation is driven (e.g. neural impulse, motor reaction, etc.), but the ability to walk is easily demonstrated.

I want to see someone flex their connective tissue, so they can show me how it's under their conscious control to employ it's alleged "strength" in applications of power/resistance.

The fact that connective tissue doesn't move under conscious control may make this a bit difficult, but that's the point...

Fu-Pow

10-03-2006, 07:55 AM

TaiChiBob

10-03-2006, 08:05 AM

Greetings..

Ford: Back so soon?

You cannot prove science said that. Now you are back-peddling because you know you are wrong.Read the links i've posted.. then, try to respond to the questions put to you..

lol! The fact remains you cannot prove your point. If you want to make a point, then prove it. You and I both know that you're not going to find a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal that measures increase in martial arts ability by your concepts. No matter how much back peddling you do, it won't change the truth. You lied. You made statements you can't prove. And now as a testament to your character, you are trying to put the burden of proof on me. Sad. Yep, i made a statement.. it stands until YOU prove it incorrect.. you have not done so, and won't..

So sad, Bob. The funny thing is that you probably believe this.No, "sad" is your belief that your reply has any substance..

Again, we both know you can't. Prove me wrong. Prove your claim correct.Here's the deal, i made a statement.. backed it up with linked references.. and, since it didn't conform to your beliefs, you challenged it.. now, it is the challenger's obligation to defeat the claim.. and, as always, i wait patiently.. You have spread more unfounded claims in your replies than any you suggest i have.. and, when asked to back them up, you ignore or shift the responsibility..

YiLiQuan1: Flex the connective tissue? you,ve truly missed the point.. please, and i'm being sincere, reread the links already provided.. the strength and benefit is from understanding the relationship between CTS and Neuro-muscular interaction.. recognizing that over-development and over-dependency on muscle mass will have diminished returns compared to a fully integrated system.. a system of energetic coherence..

Be well..

Ford Prefect

10-03-2006, 10:54 AM

Another lie, Bob? Not a single one of the studies you linked said a single thing about the training of connective tissue being a higher, more useful tool than resistance training for martial artists (or even athletes for that matter). Anything that made even passing mention of athletic performance was merely an article that was usually shilling something.

Do you have any actual studies from peer-reviewed medical journals you can link or even reference that say that training of connective tissue being a higher, more useful tool than resistance training for martial artists (or even athletes for that matter)? You have yet to post one.

Seriously. I'd be interested if you did.

TaiChiBob

10-03-2006, 11:18 AM

Greetings..

Ford: I will do this, i will respond to your inquiries immediately after you demonstrate the "peer-reviewed" basis for the following statements made by you.. made to contradict statements made by me, statements backed by linked references.. statements that imply that muscle is dominant don't count.. i need to see proof that the following statements are backed by sound scientific evidence.. it is pointless to challenge someone's assertions with unfounded claims..
Connective Tissue has NO contractile capability. Whether you are doing a tai chi form or a barbell bench press, it is your muscles that are doing the movement. Your connective tissue is along for the ride. .... Connective tissue does just that: connects things. Whether it be connecting muscle to bone or bone to bone, the tissue itself has no contractile capacity at all and is not responsible for movement
You will need to demonstrate that connective tissue has no contribution to movement of the human form and has no contractile capability.. Do that, and i will link you you to some sites and reference you to some enlightening reading that may close the gap in our understandings..

Be well...

Ford Prefect

10-03-2006, 11:19 AM

For the record, your links:

http://www.intelligentbody.org.uk/PaulLeeReview.php

A review about a conference. No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200212/ai_n9153887/pg_2

Interesting blurb about tensegrity written by Dr Heller (who will show up later in your links). Again, No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200104/ai_n8942183

Interesting peice on tensegrity again. Sounds much like the work done in ART (Active Release Therapy). Again, No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=143

Article from the Association for Meridian Energy that contains highly speculative information about some scientific data. Again,No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://www.hellerwork.com/archives/000923.html

Dr Heller explaining the work he is trying to sell. He even admits in this article that it is not accepted by sports, medicine, biology (but may be if wait a "wee bit longer".) Again, No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://www.backfixbodywork.com/Athletic_Performance_Enhancement_Pt_2.htm

Another highly speculative article more about proper structure and alignment than anything. Not even a single reference to a study. And yet again, No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/lcm.php

This is the best article of the bunch, imo. It was interesting, but yet again even the authors admit they are speculating and even suggest tests that may in the future prove or disprove their hypothesis. No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:bNy6ffdTXh0J:www.amatsu.co.uk/pdf/Tension,%2520Integrity%2520and%2520Form.pdf+Connec tive+tissue+tensegrity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=25

And finally (just to save space)... No study pertaining to CTS being a higher, more useful tool for martial artists (or athletes).

So, where in those articles that you posted did you PROVE that this assertion is true: ultimately, science and experience reveals the connective tissue as a higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist.. ?

If you make a claim, either admit you are speculating or back it up. You have yet to do either. If you speculate that the information in some of those articles is true, that's great. Do your own thing. Just don't make false statements saying that science has revealed it to be true.

Ford Prefect

10-03-2006, 12:02 PM

Oh, and as far as proving my case. How so do you want me to do it? Do you want me to post links to University level Anotomy and Physiology primers that basically explain that:

Connective Tissue has NO contractile capability. Whether you are doing a tai chi form or a barbell bench press, it is your muscles that are doing the movement. Your connective tissue is along for the ride. .... Connective tissue does just that: connects things. Whether it be connecting muscle to bone or bone to bone, the tissue itself has no contractile capacity at all and is not responsible for movement

Connective tissue does not contract. The reason why muscles contract is because nerves and muscles meet in a place called the nuero-musclular junction. When an electrical signal from the nervous system passes through this junction, it stimulates a flow of calcium which causes the thick and thin myofabrils to slide across one another. When this occurs, the sarcomere shortens and this generates force, thus moving the body.

Connective tissue lies in the muscle itself (to lubricate and bind individual muscle fibers), outside of the muscle to bind the muscle to the bone, and also on the joints to bind the joints together. Some connective tissue is made up with a lot of elastin, which as the name implies gives it a measure of elasticity. In extreme cases in extreme ranges of motion, this may facilitate a very small amount of the force produced to snap the joint back into an acceptable ROM.

Here is a decent article from the Department of Exercise and Movement Science in the University of Oregon:

http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/Eccentric_exerc_rehab.doc

It describes how muscles contract to move the body through it's ROMs and the role that connective tissue plays in said movement.

oh, and btw the main site: http://www.sportsci.org/ is a peer-reviewed non-profit site for sports science research.

I can really just tell you to go to your closest University and pick up their into to Sports Science or Intro to Anatomy and Physiology text books. It will be in there as it widely accepted as the defined role connective tissue plays in movement. As I said, I can link to many such texts as you want. I can also link to studies which explain this as the role of connective tissue or exactly what the role of skeletal muscle is.

What I can't do is find a study that says connective tissue is not responsible for movement. This is similar to the fact on how I can't find a study that says the heart is made of cobwebs. The function and composition of the heart is well known. It is stated in many places. Just like to composition and function of connective tissue is also well known and stated in many places.

If you want to infer that the textbooks and scientists are mostly wrong because you have an opinion about a cutting edge property that will make waves in the future, then I will wish you luck. I'll disagree, but I won't drag it out like this. New developments come out all the time and eventually leave the old knowledge in the dust. Such is the nature of science. However, that does not mean you can make claims saying something is "revealed through science" when it is still at best, very much in question.

This is something that seems to be out of grasp for some reason.

Fu-Pow

10-03-2006, 12:08 PM

I don't think anyone contends that connective tissue is "contractive." However, how bout elastic?:p Oh BTW, muscle tissue is elastic as well.

YiLiQuan1

10-03-2006, 12:21 PM

This is something that seems to be out of grasp for some reason.

What seems to be out of grasp for so many people is a grip on the throat of reality. Some people want so badly for there to be a degree of "magic" in their lives that they are willing to suspend their common sense and good judgement in favor of a fantasy world that overlays and suppresses the real world.

I believe in qi and qigong, but I don't attempt to couch what is at its heart a non-scientifically supported training method in pseudo-scientific language in an attempt to make it more palatable to those with a skeptical mindset. I can do X, demonstrate X, so for me whatever got me to X works. How it works is for others to determine, as I'm not overly concerned with the mechanics of some things.

That having been said, the function of the musculo-skeletal system is well documented by medical science, and the bottom line is that connective tissue doesn't "do" anything beyond hold stuff together.

Again, someone flex their connective tissue and show me how it can be actively controlled for use.

YiLiQuan1

10-03-2006, 12:23 PM

I don't think anyone contends that connective tissue is "contractive."

No, but they've said they can "use" connective tissue to increase their strength. If it isn't under conscious control, it can't be "used." It's along for the ride, holding things together, nothing more.

However, how bout elastic?:p Oh BTW, muscle tissue is elastic as well.

Sure, it's elastic, but elasticity is a passive property of soft tissue throughout the body.

TaiChiBob

10-03-2006, 01:17 PM

Greetings..

Hi Ford: Is this the quote that has your panties in a wad?

“ultimately, science and experience reveals the connective tissue as a
higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist..”
Now, we can get to the bottom of things.. let’s look at the quote.. “science AND experience”, not science alone.. yes, it is MY interpretation of MY research and MY experience.. just as your assertions are the same.. it seems that in your zeal to be correct and police the boards of such dispicable people as me, you overlooked simple sentence structure… so, you brashly accuse me of lying, misrepresentation, and sordid other transgressions.. get a grip, man, it’s really not all about you and you beliefs..

Science, in the form of studies and cutting edge research, is “revealing” an impressive amount of data related to the CTS and its effect on human health and performance.. from which, I have tested through experience certain aspects of that research and found the statements I have made to be pragmatic examples of those studies and research.. While you feel the responsibility to police the forum through pseudo-intellectual assault, I feel the need to report experiences and science that may benefit my brothers and sisters..

Now, as i understand it (i do hope that qualifies the following) the connective tissue is responsible for cell shape, both expanded (yes, cells expand) contracted..

Microscopically, tensegrity is seen in the cytoskeleton, where microtubules serve as the discontinuous compression elements and microfilaments and intermediate filaments serve as the continuous tension elements. Mechanotransduction occurs across the cell membrane thanks to integrins, proteins imbedded within the membrane that are connected to both the extracellular matrix and the cytoskeleton. This means that all the cells and extracellular matrix exhibit a continuous mechanical function right down to the genetic material in the nucleus. ********y information activates enzymes and DNA. The icosahedron naturally oscillates between left and right-handed forms with a larger-volume, higher-energy, cubic octahedron as the intermediary. A veritable pumping action results as icosahedrons oscillate. Any energy put into the system (mechanical, electrical, ionic flows) activates this oscillation of life. Thus, functioning on both a metabolic and structural level is inseparable.The quote above is taken from: http://www.intelligentbody.org.uk/PaulLeeReview.php , indicating the CTS's involvement at the intra-cellular level and its contribution to structure and mechanical function..

We think the connective tissue/cytoskeleton system combines communication, sensation, signal processing, and power handling components, integrated in a very sophisticated manner that has been honed by millions of years of evolutionary selection. Nature has used all of the possible electronic, photonic, optical, and quantum mechanical tricks to produce a network that is simple, automatic, and virtually flawless in operation.From: http://theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=143 the whole article is quite good..

The cytoskeleton offers the cell a network of microtubules throughout the cell's cytoplasm that exist in a tensional integrity fabric of microfilaments. These help the cell maintain its shape and give support and integrity to the cell. A variety of cellular organelles are held in place by these cyto-connective tissues. See photos above. Further photos, discussion, and citations are available through Dr. D. E. Ingber at http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/research/ingber/homepage.htm.from: http://www.hellerwork.com/archives/000923.html

This putty-like tissue surrounds all the muscle fibers. When we're bunched up, the muscle fibers can't extend to their maximum length. So it turns out, that when the putty is finally made as long as the maximum lengths of our muscle fibers, the bones and muscles are back to their "designed" organization. And the body actually feels uplifted and operates in a “light” manner. At the same time, it still delivers the maximum amount of power and agility its muscle strengths can provide. The tensegrity design of the human body enables the combination of forces from the different balanced soft connective tissue muscle lengths to lift more weight and apply more power than we’d think it could, based on the size of the muscles.From: http://www.backfixbodywork.com/Athletic_Performance_Enhancement_Pt_2.htm

Not only is the entire cell now known to be mechanically and electrically interconnected in a "solid state" (Clegg and Drost-Hansen, 1991) or "tensegrity system" (Ingber, 1993, 1998); all the cells in the body are in turn interconnected to one another via the connective tissues (Oschman, 1984, 1996).More accurately, perhaps, we recently discovered that the living continuum is liquid crystalline, with all the properties that make liquid crystals ideal for intercommunication (Ho et al, 1996; Ho, 1997a).From:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/lcm.php

Dr. Stephen Levin’s research in Biotensegrity holds the view that the body is atensegrity truss system with tension members provided by a matrix of connectivetissues, ligaments, muscles, blood vessels, nerves and fascia. In this model, the bones are considered as spacers, not weight bearers along with incompressible fluids giving shape and form to a soft tissue entity. In keeping with this theory of the body being a soft tissue continuum, Hatsumi Senseidemonstrated to us the concept of a one point therapeutic protocol. This was possiblebecause of the principle of Gairon utilising the interconnectedness of all the biologicalstructures of our bodies. “The continuity or global interconnectedness of the living matrix is essential to the understanding of the body and the role of energetics in health and disease”. Oschman, J. Energy Medicine (P232)He taught us that to apply pressure on one point affected all parts and explained thatwith the body movement “Tai Jutsu” you were able to follow the torsional directionsof vulnerable or damaged tissue. He explained that these points of interaction wereknown as Kyusho, where change at one point had a critical effect on the whole.From: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:bNy6ffdTXh0J:www.amatsu.co.uk/pdf/Tension,%2520Integrity%2520and%2520Form.pdf+Connec tive+tissue+tensegrity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=25

Now, from just the posted excerpts shown above, i am hopeful that others can begine to consider that the connective tissue is not "just along for the ride".. it is integral to form and function, and.. that, using one's powers of reasoning, testing the applied theories, and formulating sound opinions.. science and experience reveals to the "dedicated martial artist" that the connective tissue system is essential and its health and maintenance a crucial and useful tool.. oh, i'm the "dedicated martial artist" in the referenced quote..

Be well...

Ford Prefect

10-03-2006, 02:07 PM

Greetings..

Hi Ford: Is this the quote that has your panties in a wad?

Wouldn't expect more from you. Bravo.

Now, we can get to the bottom of things.. let’s look at the quote.. “science AND experience”, not science alone.. yes, it is MY interpretation of MY research and MY experience.. just as your assertions are the same.. it seems that in your zeal to be correct and police the boards of such dispicable people as me, you overlooked simple sentence structure… so, you brashly accuse me of lying, misrepresentation, and sordid other transgressions.. get a grip, man, it’s really not all about you and you beliefs..

Interesting cop out. This still doesn't address the fact that you've shown nothing scientific to support your claim. As for beliefs, those would be beliefs of the general sports science community as a whole. Not just my "beliefs", but facts brought to light through the rigor of the scientific process. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same.

Science, in the form of studies and cutting edge research, is “revealing” an impressive amount of data related to the CTS and its effect on human health and performance.. from which, I have tested through experience certain aspects of that research and found the statements I have made to be pragmatic examples of those studies and research.. While you feel the responsibility to police the forum through pseudo-intellectual assault, I feel the need to report experiences and science that may benefit my brothers and sisters..

Interesting how calling out an obviously fallacy about science on a public discussion forum is now "policing" the forum. Were you "policing" the forum when you initially responded to my post? Right...

Please list the exact studies that are revealing an impressive amount of data related to CTS's effect on human performance. Here we go again...

Now, as i understand it (i do hope that qualifies the following) the connective tissue is responsible for cell shape, both expanded (yes, cells expand) contracted..

Technically "connective tissue" has a lot of functions. Connective tissue is a catch-all term that includes blood, bone, and other such tissues with a wide variety of functions. As far as providing locomotion for the body and it's appendages, muscle is responsible for that.

The quote above is taken from: http://www.intelligentbody.org.uk/PaulLeeReview.php , indicating the CTS's involvement at the intra-cellular level and its contribution to structure and mechanical function..

The above quote had to do with a review of a conference and nothing to do with a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates that CTS moves the body. Mechanical does not = "make the body move".

From: http://theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=143 the whole article is quite good..

"We think" being the key words with no rational basis for that thought that would hold up to scientific scrutiny. No studies... just an article from a random site.

The cytoskeleton offers the cell a network of microtubules throughout the cell's cytoplasm that exist in a tensional integrity fabric of microfilaments...

from: http://www.hellerwork.com/archives/000923.html

And what is this supposed to prove? Yet again, this is not a study, just an article on a site trying to sell what it is saying.

This putty-like tissue surrounds all the muscle fibers. When we're bunched up, the muscle fibers can't extend to their maximum length. So it turns out, that when the putty is finally made as long as the maximum lengths of our muscle fibers, the bones and muscles are back to their "designed" organization.... From: http://www.backfixbodywork.com/Athletic_Performance_Enhancement_Pt_2.htm

More speculation with no scientific grounding. No citations of a scientific study or even a study relating CTS and human performance. You do know what a scientific, peer-reviewed study is, right? I am beginning to think not with your insistance that these are reliable sources.

By the way, all muscle fibers are indeed surrounded by connective tissue. Take a lucky guess at the way to cause that tissue to strengthen and hypertrophy: high intensity resistance training.

Not really going to bother with the others as it is more of the same. Excerpts from articles and not actual scientific studies. Even then, they do not say anything about CTS as it relates to human performance in combat or even athletics in more than passing mention.

Now, from just the posted excerpts shown above, i am hopeful that others can begine to consider that the connective tissue is not "just along for the ride".. it is integral to form and function, and.. that, using one's powers of reasoning, testing the applied theories, and formulating sound opinions.. science and experience reveals to the "dedicated martial artist" that the connective tissue system is essential and its health and maintenance a crucial and useful tool.. oh, i'm the "dedicated martial artist" in the referenced quote..

Be well...

Sure it's integral in form and function. An internal combusion engine is what moves a normal car. Yes? Now how would that function or look with any nuts or bolts? It would obviously fall apart and do nothing, which demonstrates connective tissues important role. However, what role do the nuts and bolts play other than connecting the engine parts? They are just along for the ride as the engine provides the power output to send the car forward.

Luckily for us, we are not engines. We can increase our "engine strength" by heavy resistance training and an ancillary benefit of said training is that our nuts and bolts (tendons, ligaments/intra-muscular connective tissue) also becomes stronger. You do not become stronger because your connective tissue is stronger.

Again, all this is relatively simple and part of most intro courses in sports science and physiology. If you believe contrary, then it is in conflict with science and not because of it. You could of course post studies which support your case. You've yet to do so. You could change your quote to:

Ultimately, articles on the internet and experience reveal that connective tissue is the higher, more useful tool for a dedicated martial artist...

Leave science out of it. Oh and the dedicated martial artist in that quote is you.

Be well...

Scott R. Brown

10-03-2006, 03:41 PM

HEY!!!

You guys are bogarting my pi$$ing contest with Fu Pow and spiralstair!!:mad:

I guess its my turn to sit back and watch!!;)

YiLiQuan1

10-03-2006, 05:41 PM

WTF is "tensegrity?"

"The word 'tensegrity' is an invention: a contraction of 'tensional integrity.' Tensegrity describes a structural-relationship principle in which structural shape is guarenteed by the finitely closed, comprehensively continuous, tensional behaviors of the system and not by the discontinuous and exclusively local compressional member behaviors. Tensegrity provides the ability to yield increasingly without ultimately breaking or coming asunder"

That's from www.tensegrity.com, and appears to be nothing more than a neat-o word created by someone who has rediscovered the wheel and is trying really hard to convince the rest of us that it's something new... Hmmm... :rolleyes: Structural shape is guaranteed by its component parts. Ya think? ;)

All those quotes seem to come from the same non-scientific, self-promoting sites attempting to get people to believe their theories.

It's like when I was in massage therapy school... The people who believed in polarity therapy (a pseudo-qigong based "therapy") would cite no end of pro-polarity "evidence," but couldn't cite any independent, objective proof of the validity of polarity treatments (the bulk of which are no more than holding one's hands near "energy centers" on the body, often without making any physical contact whatsoever).

Sounds like new-age BS. I'm willing to believe something that stands commonly held "fact" on its ear, but not without something independent to contrast against the "beliefs" of converts to an idea.

Yet again, let's see someone consciously employ their connective tissue to improve their power/strength/technique. Compare a non-CTS movement with one using CTS "strength." If it can't be done, it can't be done.

TaiChiBob

10-04-2006, 06:42 AM

Greetings..

Ford: We hold differing values as to the basis of our belief systems.. you seem to be content to rest on proven fact.. i look to the cutting edge of exploration and peer into your future.. while you are correct, the articles i cite are not "peer reviewed", they are studies made by reputable professionals.. they work diligently to expand our knowledge-base.. to improve our condition .. to enhance our experience of living.. those that are steadfastly attached to "just the facts, ma'am", will be last beneficiaries when the "peers" bless the work..

Interesting cop out. This still doesn't address the fact that you've shown nothing scientific to support your claim. As for beliefs, those would be beliefs of the general sports science community as a whole. Not just my "beliefs", but facts brought to light through the rigor of the scientific process. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same.LOL, not a "cop out", just an illustration of your inability to reason through the issues.. you saw something you didn't like and invoked the inquisition, i'm used to people like you, you're amusing.. I have referenced numerous reports by people of science, cutting edge researchers.. you, spout the rhetorical dogma of "peer review".. you respond to equally direct questions by avoidance and diversion.. you arbitrarily label data that doesn't conform to your beliefs as dubious or self-serving, in hopes that it diminishes the data's perceived value.. and, what have you achieved? Your characterization of the CTS indicates a prejudice against knowledge that you find undesirable.. i have avoided referencing "medical" references due to length and complexity, you know, like Johns Hopkins, Princeton, the "dubious" institutions.. there is much to be gained from an unprejudiced investigation of the information i have referenced... But, i am not inclined to mentor you through all of the data, try it for yourself.. i jest, i realize i am wasting my time and yours.. your have iron to pump, people to persecute and "peers" to embrace.. me?, i've got a life to live, a broad horizon to explore.. i'm not waiting for "peer reviews" to set my course, i have faith in my own experiences..

Interesting how calling out an obviously fallacy about science on a public discussion forum is now "policing" the forum. Were you "policing" the forum when you initially responded to my post? Right...An "obvious fallacy"?... please continue the the mantra in hopes that if it's heard enough it will be believed.. i've cited references by medical doctors, scientists, and researchers.. you, rail against the obvious, anchored in "facts, oblivious to direct experience, and failing to respond to any of the queries put to you.. The "obvious fallacy" is no more than a difference of perspectives.. No, i wasn't "policing" the forum, i was responding to your assertion of "bad information"..

Technically "connective tissue" has a lot of functions. Connective tissue is a catch-all term that includes blood, bone, and other such tissues with a wide variety of functions. As far as providing locomotion for the body and it's appendages, muscle is responsible for that.Perhaps, a visit to medical sites referenced by "connective tissue" would shed some light on your understanding of "muscle".. the CTS is intergal even to muscular operation, and.. the CTS's beneficial contribution is compromised by over-developed or over-used muscules.. the issue i am trying to put forth is the appropriate balance necessary for optimum performance..

"We think" being the key words with no rational basis for that thought that would hold up to scientific scrutiny. No studies... just an article from a random siteC'mon, Ford, play your own game.. refute it with references, you know, "peer reviewed" studies that refute the statement.. these are researchers working with a world-wide network of doctors, scientists and other researchers.. "no rational basis"?, THAT is the irrational statement..

Again, all this is relatively simple and part of most intro courses in sports science and physiology. If you believe contrary, then it is in conflict with science and not because of it. You could of course post studies which support your case. You've yet to do so. I have posted evidence of a more in-depth understanding of the inner workings of the human body, i have stated that the postings are for anyone's benefit AND to be evaluated by the observer accordingly, i state that the references for use as the observer sees fit.. i am not trying to convert people, only trying to offer them options in their quest for excellence.. conversely, you would have them reject anything not approved by you..

You do not become stronger because your connective tissue is stronger. Yep, here we go again.. back it up, show us where there is a study that confirms this.. you know, "peer reviewed" and all.. or, just admit it's simply part of your dogmatic belief system..

Ultimately, articles on the internet, supported by scientific researchers, and experience reveal that connective tissue is the higher, more useful tool for a dedicated martial artist... There, i think that should balance our differences..

YiLiQuan1:

Yet again, let's see someone consciously employ their connective tissue to improve their power/strength/technique. Compare a non-CTS movement with one using CTS "strength." If it can't be done, it can't be done.I can do it, i can introduce to many others that can, as well.. it's easier than you think.. oops, that has an element of an unfounded assumption....

All those quotes seem to come from the same non-scientific, self-promoting sites attempting to get people to believe their theories.Really, could you point out the basis for that statement.. those people (scientists and researchers, or.. practitioners based on science and research) put their theories out there for public scrutiny, for contradictory "evidence", and for the benefit of those willing to see beyond the dogma..

In closing, i will cite a quote of a friend.. "you can lead a jacka$$ to knowledge, but you can't make him think"...

Be well..

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 08:05 AM

Bob,

Let's make this easy. You post scientific studies from peer-reviewed journals asserting your case to be true, and I will post mine. Here are mine:

Fung Y (1981) Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissue Springer-Verlag :302

Komi P (1984) Physiological and biomechanical correlates of muscle function Exercise and Sports Science Review 14: 81-121

Vidiik A (1973) Functional Properties of collagenous tissues Int Review of Connective Tissue Res 9:265-305

Goldspink G (1978) Muscle energetics in animal locomotion Mechanics and Energetics of Animal Locomotion : 57-81 (I think you'd like this one because it talks of the crucial role that stored elastic energy in the tendons plays in energy conservation during tasks)

Kovelik A (1978) Prevention of overstress to the skeletal-joint system in weight lifters Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi Kultury 4: 36-39

Of course you will need access to medical journals for this. Having a background in science and working in a science-related field, I have such access. Here are some links to free content on blackwell-synergy.com. This will give you an idea as to what a proper a scientific study in the realm of physiology looks like. These are from the peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1113/jphysiol.2005.094615

Extract:
Alkalosis enhances human exercise performance, and reduces K+ loss in contracting rat muscle. We investigated alkalosis effects on K+ regulation, ionic regulation and fatigue during intense exercise in nine untrained volunteers. Concentric finger flexions were conducted at 75% peak work rate (3 W) until fatigue, under alkalosis (Alk, NaHCO3, 0.3 g kg1) and control (Con, CaCO3) conditions, 1 month apart in a randomised, double-blind, crossover design. ...

Subjects

Nine healthy untrained volunteers, comprising five males and four females, gave written, informed consent and participated in the study. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Victoria University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee, and conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki. Physical characteristics of the subjects...

Pre-experiment peak exercise performance tests. Leg cycling incremental exercise
was 3.52 ± 0.30 l min1 (49.9 ± 4.2 ml kg 1min1), and peak work rate was 269 ± 25 W. In contrast, incremental finger flexion exercise test peak work rate (WRpeak) was only 4.06 ± 0.34 W, and the peak force was 19.22 ± 1.27 N. ...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00389.x

This is what scientific studies look like They are not articles from websites that are written by people trying to sell products. They are not articles from websites that speculate greatly with no scientific references backing them up. Lastly, they are not articles from websites that are written to appear scientific but are not peer-reviewed.

----

Books asserting my case (and the collective case of the physiology community as a whole) are easily found:

McArdle: Exercise Physiology 5/e (This is what Harvard Medical School uses for related courses)

Jenkins: Anatomy and Physiology (Again this is what Harvard Medical School uses for their related courses)

----

Here are some online references. You will have to pay for online subscriptions to the medical journals, but this may help:

Ingber D (2005) Tissue adaption to mechanical forces in healthy and aging tissues. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
Volume 15 Page 199 - August 2005

Komi P et al (1992) Biomechanical loading of Achilles tendon during normal locomotion. Clin Sports Med. 1992 Jul;11(3):521-31

Booth and Tseng (1993) Olympic Goal: Molecular and Cellular Approaches to Understanding Muscle Adaptation News Physiol Sci 8: 165-169, 1993

Zajac F (1989) Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Critical Review Biomedical Engineering 1989;17(4):359-411.

Book solely on the subject: Human Tendons - Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology http://www.humankinetics.com/PRODUCTS/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?ISBN=0873224841&

---

I could list the phsyiology and biomechanics texts used by every accreditted university since they are all very similar and say the same things about connective tissue properties. I figured Harvard Medical School gave me the most bang for my buck. Also, I actually have these books as Harvard is down the street from me and I've taken lectures and night courses (both for fun) there.

Your turn. Please list peer-reviewed studies or at the very least physiology books used in the biology/medical courses of accreditted universities which assert your case. You have shown complete ignorance of the scientific process. If something is not peer-reviewed, it is not science. It does not hold up to scientific rigor. This is the very backbone of science: the ability of your peers to review your work and replicate/confirm your conclusions. Even men like Einstein were subject to peer-review and had to answer many criticisms. Even men like Einstein were 100% wrong when criticising some of his peer's work (Bohr and Quantum Mechanics). This leads to open discussion and debate, which in turn leads to the truth being revealed.

All scientists must be extremely open minded because there is no dogma. If data is presented that changes popularly held beliefs, then it is scrutinized. If it is shown to be true, then it is accepted. Even cutting edge science is subject to peer-reviewal in order to evolve and gain acceptance. Please post evidence of such peer-reviewed studies that support you case.

If you want to go by the fact that it is extrapolation from scientific studies that have not been tested via the scientific process (and are thus not science), then that is fine. Be cutting edge. You just can't claim it science.

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 08:21 AM

And for everybody else reading this thread (ie Bob don't respond to this post),

I am the very first person to admit that science does not have all the answers. There are plenty of phenomena that can NOT be explained by science yet. This is displayed in the fact that I indeed practice Tai Chi and Qi Qong. I do the Tai Chi (Yang) long form every other day. On the off days, I do various styles of Yoga. I do Qi Qong every other day. The off days are filled with Zen Meditation as an attempt to vew things from a non-rational basis. Things I experience in practicing all these things can't be explained by science.

As a human, I can attempt to rationalize things. For instance, during qi qong training when I'm leading qi through my body and can physically make some areas warm to the touch. I can rationalize this away concentration on a certain area which premotes nervous system activation/blood flow/etc to that area thus making me feel these effects. That is not science though. It is an answer based on my understanding of science, but it is just speculation.

Do you see the difference?

Science = hypothesis, experimental structure, experiment, experimental results, conclusions drawn from results, published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field.

Speculation = Taking a scientific study or general held scientific beliefs and then using that branch off into explaining something. There is no hypothesis (in actuality most of the articles being posted here would serve similarly as a hypothesis), but it is not followed with proper scientific structure, a gathering of test results, and an objective look at the results to be weighed against the hypothesis. There is none of this, hence it is speculation.

Science is not something that should be *******ized and used as a means to undermine itself. It is based on the very thing that allowed man to be able to rise up out of the realm of animals: rational thought and reason. Every twisting of a scientific principle is a twisting attack on reason and rational thought. Where does it end? I for one, do believe such a thing is a dispicable act and if left unchecked can cause gross damage to the world that we know. That is why I'm arguing scientific points here. Not because I think science has the answer to every question or that science is my "belief" structure. A "belief structure" goes against everything science is.

spiralstair

10-04-2006, 11:58 AM

Fu-Pow

10-04-2006, 12:15 PM

Science is not something that should be *******ized and used as a means to undermine itself. It is based on the very thing that allowed man to be able to rise up out of the realm of animals: rational thought and reason. Every twisting of a scientific principle is a twisting attack on reason and rational thought. Where does it end? I for one, do believe such a thing is a dispicable act and if left unchecked can cause gross damage to the world that we know. That is why I'm arguing scientific points here. Not because I think science has the answer to every question or that science is my "belief" structure. A "belief structure" goes against everything science is.

The truth is that science operates both on logic and intuition. The monumental discoveries in science often weren't put together logically and rationally, often there was a hunch, or feeling or an sudden insight after long periods of thought.

I actually work in science and consider myself something of a historian of science and I can tell you that your view of science is skewed. Actually, science does have a "belief" structure, it can become dogmatic. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions?"

What you are talkng about is "normal" science, everyday science that proceeds incrementally, logically, rationally but there is also such thing as a 'scientific revolution' created when the data no longer fits the rational explanation and a "crisis" ensues. That's when scientists start investigating intuitions, gut instincts.

Fu-Pow

10-04-2006, 12:26 PM

Speculation = Taking a scientific study or general held scientific beliefs and then using that branch off into explaining something. There is no hypothesis (in actuality most of the articles being posted here would serve similarly as a hypothesis), but it is not followed with proper scientific structure, a gathering of test results, and an objective look at the results to be weighed against the hypothesis. There is none of this, hence it is speculation.

Your "speculation" is also what is known as inference and scientists infer things all the time. Then they go back and get all the data to back it up.

In some fields of science the data is not readily available, most of the field is dominated by inferences...is it still science?

Furthermore, science often misses the forest for the trees. Science is subjective in the sense that the scientist chooses what to train his focus on. Its a blind bias that can never be fully accounted for.

Just because a scientist hasn't "studied" it doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist. We can INFER based on the evidence that such and such violates this scientifically studied fact but that's not really science...as you've already pointed out.

The truth in this case is that some very experienced and intutive people figured out a unique way to use the human body for the purpose of martial arts. They didn't have a well developed scientific method and quite frankly, they didn't need it. They explained how it worked with the paradigms available to them.

As moderns we're looking to science for the answers. We're inferring based on some research that has proceeded us. But science has to get past the dogma and look at this first. Look at IMA and see how it is different, a lot might be learned about the potential ways of using the human body.....to not is to be dogmatic.

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 12:41 PM

Hi Ford,
Great post. One really gets the feeling you have for the necessity of proof.
Here's your progression:
Science = hypothesis, experimental structure, experiment, experimental results, conclusions drawn from results, published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field.

Here's another one using yours for a springboard:
T'ai Chi= Hypothesis: a worthwhile pursuit, even a "path" to the Big One, understanding Self.
experimental structure: the practice of traditional T'ai Chi forms
Experiment: lifelong practice while undergoing the natural changes of growing old
experimental results: an honest self assessment, rooted in demonstratable changes in function and behavior of body and personality
conclusions drawn from results: what it is possible to pass on through transmission to the next generation that can be reproduced in their practice
published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field: The peer review is ongoing in Tai Chi, it's called push hands.

One thing I think that Science still lacks is an ability to bring us any closer to understanding 'Who' it 'Is' that it is doing the studying. The 'I' eludes science, but maybe not T'ai Chi.

Science has given birth to the Skeptical Mind, and we are all better off for it. To have too much a skeptical mind though, IMO, is like a sea anchor off the back of your ship. You're still sailing, but your missing how fast you could be going.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

Spiralstair,

I appreciate the attempt at understanding. Those unfamiliar with the scientific method have the harder time grasping it's nuances. In your experiment:

Hypothesis: How is a worthwhile pursuit being defined? What is the exact definition you are using? How can it be quantifiable measured? How will you go about getting these measurements? Is the measurement purely objective or is it subjective on basis of the study participant? If a hypothesis is not measurable, then it is not science.

Experiment: That is a fine experiment. Although you will need more test subjects and for due-dilligence sake balance that against those who do not practice Tai Chi.

Experimental Results: This should be the measurements that were supposed to alluded to in your hypothesis or statement of experimental model/methods.

Conclusions: This is where you draw logical conclusions based on the measurements using logic. Fallacious logical arguments need to be avoided like the plague as it is the death bell in any peer-review process. As I said, reason and rational thought is the backbone of science.

Peer-review: This is where similar educated professionals review the work and replicate the results and/or confirm the conclusions. In this example, push hands skill does not correlate to the hypothesis.

Science isn't concerned with the "I". It is meant to purely objective. "I" makes things subjective. Unless you want to drone on with Kant's critique of reason, the objectivity is the most important aspect of the scientific method. This allows the experiementing scientists and their reviewing peers to weigh the value of the data on its merit alone, and not on preconceived notions or personal biases.

Objectivity has given birth to a branch of philosophy called Objectivism. Amung the more noteable devotees is Ayn Rand who is the author of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged being her most famous peice. Objectivism attempts to deal with the "I" that science leaves behind in an objective sense. Like science, it relies on rational thought and reason.

Now I try to balance such things out with my pursuit of Zen meditation amung other branches of philosophy. The answer to koans is not rational or reasonable in the scientific sense. It in a sense is supposed to free ones mind from the rational reality of experience.

As for skepticism, that is one of the building blocks that science is built on. If somebody came along and said, "The sun revolves around the earth", they can't just proclaim it science because the fellow happens to be a scientist. No. The other scientists say "prove it". The claimee then must create testable criteria to prove his hypothesis. The scientific community will again approach it with skepticism. After looking over the data, confirming it, and replicating, then the claim will be accepted or thrown away. That is how science stays pure with only testable and verifiable knowledge.

This is also why a "belief system" as it were runs contradictory to science. New data is adopted often and theories are modified because of it. Nobody is opposed to a theory being turned on its head. It's actually quite an exciting time when something like that happens. However, for a theory to be turned on its head, it will have to be because of proven data. Some people view this as the scientific community being pig headed and dogmatists similar to those in a religion. It couldn't be further from the truth. New information that can be proven is embraced with open arms. Science is dynamic. The very nature of dogma is to remain static. The problem is that if you make a scientific claim, then you must back it up with a testable and verifiable results.

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 12:50 PM

The truth is that science operates both on logic and intuition. The monumental discoveries in science often weren't put together logically and rationally, often there was a hunch, or feeling or an sudden insight after long periods of thought.

I actually work in science and consider myself something of a historian of science and I can tell you that your view of science is skewed. Actually, science does have a "belief" structure, it can become dogmatic. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions?"

What you are talkng about is "normal" science, everyday science that proceeds incrementally, logically, rationally but there is also such thing as a 'scientific revolution' created when the data no longer fits the rational explanation and a "crisis" ensues. That's when scientists start investigating intuitions, gut instincts.

Incorrect. Because something stems from a hunch, feeling, or a sudden insight does not mean the method that is then undertaken to test this hunch is not scientific. Hypothesis are made, experimental models are drawn up, and data is collected.

Is every hunch correct? Does every hunch lead to a scientific breakthrough? The obvious answer is no. The difference between one that is breakthrough and one that isn't, is that the one that is a breakthrough is then backed up through the scientific method.

Science certainly doesn't have a belief structure. Sir Karl Popper states it well when he says: "...in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

If you were so inclined, you'd find similar quotes from such eminent physicists as Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman.

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 01:07 PM

Your "speculation" is also what is known as inference and scientists infer things all the time. Then they go back and get all the data to back it up.

Precisely. They go and get the data to back it up...

In some fields of science the data is not readily available, most of the field is dominated by inferences...is it still science?

Examples please? You could use evolutionary biology as an example as there are no testable hypothesis that can be conducted in scientific experiments. However, if you want to say that it is dominated by inferences, then you show a lack of understanding.

Furthermore, science often misses the forest for the trees. Science is subjective in the sense that the scientist chooses what to train his focus on. Its a blind bias that can never be fully accounted for.

Actually that's part and parcel to Kant's critique which was written in the 1500's (if I remember correctly). It's not a new thought. I'm sure you've heard of philosopher Robert Prussik, the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, who delves into this very topic quite extensively.

The reason why the scientific structure is not rocked by this is because, experiments that are chosen to be conducted are surely subjected. However, those experiments are then conducted in an objectove manner and are likewise reviewed and verified in an objective manner. If "subjectivity" were truly the only thing support science, then that would mean all scientists would have to be on board. Theories would be static. If anything, this has proven to be 100% incorrect.

Just because a scientist hasn't "studied" it doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist. We can INFER based on the evidence that such and such violates this scientifically studied fact but that's not really science...as you've already pointed out.

I agree 100%. However, that inference that has not yet withstood the rigor of the scientific method is not science anymore than any unproven idea is science.

The truth in this case is that some very experienced and intutive people figured out a unique way to use the human body for the purpose of martial arts. They didn't have a well developed scientific method and quite frankly, they didn't need it. They explained how it worked with the paradigms available to them.

Very good. It is not science though. That is the whole point of my post. I assume you missed it. In a nutshell, I said science can't explain everything. There are things that science can't measure or attempt to explain as of yet. However, the things it can measure adhere to strict guidelines.

As moderns we're looking to science for the answers. We're inferring based on some research that has proceeded us. But science has to get past the dogma and look at this first. Look at IMA and see how it is different, a lot might be learned about the potential ways of using the human body.....to not is to be dogmatic.

And there are plenty of studies being done on alternative medicines. I'm anxiously awaiting for the results of one such trial done on accupuncture that is lasting over a few years. Just because science has yet to test something does not mean that it will never do it. There are infinite possibilities to test out there. Scientists wants to make breakthroughs. Coaches want their athletes to excel. It's not like every scientist has gotten together and said "OK. This IMA stuff is a huge threat to us. Let's ignore it and stick to old dogma." It's laughable to consider dogma is holding science back.

Fu-Pow

10-04-2006, 03:54 PM

Incorrect. Because something stems from a hunch, feeling, or a sudden insight does not mean the method that is then undertaken to test this hunch is not scientific. Hypothesis are made, experimental models are drawn up, and data is collected.

Uh yeah that's what I said. I wasn't arguing the empirical part of your science but rather that science is all logic and rational. Its not, a good scientist has good intuition as well. The ones that don't get very far.

Is every hunch correct? Does every hunch lead to a scientific breakthrough? The obvious answer is no. The difference between one that is breakthrough and one that isn't, is that the one that is a breakthrough is then backed up through the scientific method.

Where did I say that every hunch is correct? Again, your arguing empiricism I'm arguing the rational nature of science.

Science certainly doesn't have a belief structure.

The underlying belief structure of science is that the universe is ultimately understandable by the hypothetical-empirical method. While that method certainly has taught us alot about the universe it has also shown its limitations. Alot of what passes for "science" is lacking in empricial data....cosmology comes to mind or particle physics where your average scientist gets to collide particles like once every 5 years.

Sir Karl Popper states it well when he says: "...in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

I agree but not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying.

Fu-Pow

10-04-2006, 04:08 PM

Examples please? You could use evolutionary biology as an example as there are no testable hypothesis that can be conducted in scientific experiments. However, if you want to say that it is dominated by inferences, then you show a lack of understanding.

In this case the theory is supported by the lack of evidence to refute it as much as the evidence that supports it.

Actually that's part and parcel to Kant's critique which was written in the 1500's (if I remember correctly). It's not a new thought. I'm sure you've heard of philosopher Robert Prussik, the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, who delves into this very topic quite extensively.

I've read that book. Its all really about Plato vs Aristotle. The universe "in here" vs. the universe "out there."

The reason why the scientific structure is not rocked by this is because, experiments that are chosen to be conducted are surely subjected. However, those experiments are then conducted in an objectove manner and are likewise reviewed and verified in an objective manner. If "subjectivity" were truly the only thing support science, then that would mean all scientists would have to be on board. Theories would be static. If anything, this has proven to be 100% incorrect.

I'm not trying to "rock" science. What I'm trying to say is that science subjectively determines what is considered valid inquiry.

I agree 100%. However, that inference that has not yet withstood the rigor of the scientific method is not science anymore than any unproven idea is science.

Absolutely.

And there are plenty of studies being done on alternative medicines. I'm anxiously awaiting for the results of one such trial done on accupuncture that is lasting over a few years. Just because science has yet to test something does not mean that it will never do it. There are infinite possibilities to test out there. Scientists wants to make breakthroughs. Coaches want their athletes to excel. It's not like every scientist has gotten together and said "OK. This IMA stuff is a huge threat to us. Let's ignore it and stick to old dogma." It's laughable to consider dogma is holding science back.

No. What I'm saying, and what I've been saying is its not even on the radar of science. Some will argue that it shouldn't be (obviously debatable) but I can say that as a skeptical person and practioner of martial arts for ten years that there is something unusual going on with IMA, not "mystical" but something that isn't easily explainable either.

Try this experiment. Put weight on on of your legs with your hand on the quadricep muscle. What happens? The quad tenses up in a response to gravity. Now my Taiji teacher did exactly the same thing and I put my hand on his quad. I didn't feel the muscle tense at all. It felt like a pulse went through the muscle and it was completely soft again. His weight was still on the leg. It was weird. He's had me do the same thing when he is pushing on a person and again the shoulder totally soft.

So what is doing the action? Something inside? Is it a displacement of weight across the structure? As a rational person I'm looking for answers but none readily present themselves and yet there is the "data", my senses perceiving this strange phenomena. Granted the sense can be deceived and impartial measuring devices would help provide clarification but there it is.

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 04:30 PM

Uh yeah that's what I said. I wasn't arguing the empirical part of your science but rather that science is all logic and rational. Its not, a good scientist has good intuition as well. The ones that don't get very far.

And I was making it clear that his intuition plays only a role as a creative impetus. The scientist then tests his intuition via the scientific method.

The underlying belief structure of science is that the universe is ultimately understandable by the hypothetical-empirical method. While that method certainly has taught us alot about the universe it has also shown its limitations. Alot of what passes for "science" is lacking in empricial data....cosmology comes to mind or particle physics where your average scientist gets to collide particles like once every 5 years.

Herein lies your error. Science is not an attempt to explain everything in the universe. It is merely a platform to explain to explain that which can be observed, quantified, and measured in a consistent manner. Some scientists may believe that they'll eventually explain the whole universe, but science is merely a method for understanding the natural world.

I agree but not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying.

Because you are trying to say their scientific dogma... There is not.

Ford Prefect

10-04-2006, 04:53 PM

In this case the theory is supported by the lack of evidence to refute it as much as the evidence that supports it.

In this case, the overwhelming majority of available evidence leads down one path. Can't the same be said for the theory of relativity? Or any theory...

I've read that book. Its all really about Plato vs Aristotle. The universe "in here" vs. the universe "out there."

Not really even close. I brought it up because it fit the discussion. Zen and the Art of MM was an introduction into Pirsig's idea of the Metaphysics of Quality. He goes into great detail explaining this through the entire book. Quality, he explains, is what gives the scientist his "intuition" to conduct one set of experiements over another, to test one hypothesis over the next. He then tries to blend his metaphysics of quality with eastern thought in an attempt to bridge the gap between mysticism, art and science; to reconcile the technological age with our "spirit".

Pirsig himself has said as much. If you get the 25th anniversary edition, there is quite a bit of information about Pirsig's philosophy and what he was attempting to explain in the back (including interviews with him). Check it out next time you are at the book store. He did use the work of men like Aristotle, Plato, Kant, and Hume to round out his points.

I'm not trying to "rock" science. What I'm trying to say is that science subjectively determines what is considered valid inquiry.

Which is why I brought up Pirsig and Kant since this is a theme that is central to their work.

No. that I'm saying, and what I've been saying is its not even on the radar of science. Some will argue that it shouldn't be (obviously debatable) but I can say that as a skeptical person and practioner of martial arts for ten years that there is something unusual going on with IMA, not "mystical" but something that isn't easily explainable either.

Try this experiment. Put weight on on of your legs with your hand on the quadricep muscle. What happens? The quad tenses up in a response to gravity. Now my Taiji teacher did exactly the same thing and I put my hand on his quad. I didn't feel the muscle tense at all. It felt like a pulse went through the muscle and it was completely soft again. His weight was still on the leg. It was weird. He's had me do the same thing when he is pushing on a person and again the shoulder totally soft.

So what is doing the action? Something inside? Is it a displacement of weight across the structure? As a rational person I'm looking for answers but none readily present themselves and yet there is the "data", my senses perceiving this strange phenomena. Granted the sense can be deceived and impartial measuring devices would help provide clarification but there it is.

Combat arts themsleves aren't on the radar of science. The "mystical" alternative healing methods used by Tai Chi Chuan, Chi Kung, Accupuncture, Accupressure, etc are though. Some very interesting studies are coming. Even some neuro-peptide pathways are being found to correspond with chi meridians.

Many see them as something that has already been explained through kenetic linking and the production of force by the human body. However I can't speak for science as a whole. If one were to feel the claimed difference between an internal strike vs a external strike, then one may decide to study it.

As for your study, obviously I can't speak for it since I don't have your master to poke and prod. Would your master volunteer himself to be poked and prodded by scientists? Could we create a measurable hypothesis to work from and then conduct tests and aquire data to see the validity of that hypothesis? Why don't you apprach the local university's physiology department and see if they are interesting in testing your master out?

My whole point is that it is perfectly acceptable to believe things contrary to science or something that has not been proven by science. To each his own. I just won't accept it if you come on here and dress it up with flowery language and claim it is science. That's all really.

RonH

10-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Try this experiment. Put weight on on of your legs with your hand on the quadricep muscle. What happens? The quad tenses up in a response to gravity. Now my Taiji teacher did exactly the same thing and I put my hand on his quad. I didn't feel the muscle tense at all. It felt like a pulse went through the muscle and it was completely soft again. His weight was still on the leg. It was weird. He's had me do the same thing when he is pushing on a person and again the shoulder totally soft.

It could have been done via more conscious control of the muscles of the legs and joint "locking" predominately. In the passive leaning back stretch, the entire front is relaxed, while the back is tensed up, so the front stretches. You didn't say what position the rest of your profe's body was in, but it is possible to lock up the joints to support weight, without tensing up the muscles in the body anymore than what's needed to keep the person in that particular position, extra weight free. The level of muscle contraction needed, when weight is evenly distributed over the center of gravity is actually really, really small. It's so small that it can be seen as being 'soft', seemingly not using the muscles at all.

With the proper angle, adding weight doesn't necessarily mean the muscle is gonna tense because the parts of the body are distributing the weight enough on both sides that that position requires little muscle tension when more weight is added. When it is the muscles only that are keeping a limb in a certain position, muscle tension increase is more likely. When someone has their hands on their thighs, it makes me think they might have positioned themselves, so that the force of gravity from the added weight would focus on the joints without added muscle tension (or at least a very little amount that there seems to be no difference).

For the pulse, it could have been more conscious control of the circulatory system, pushing more blood through the area of the muscle to clear out fatigue poison build up. It could have even been a pulse of chi passing through the leg, decreasing tension and helping to draw fatigue posions away from the area or even stress/pain in the form of energy (the energy that would be signaling the sense of touch receptors that would transmit the stress/pain info into the brain, so another signal didn't go back to the muscles).

But, without knowing more about your profe, I can't be sure if it's any of these or something else, though this could be a place to start.

Fu-Pow

10-04-2006, 11:05 PM

Herein lies your error. Science is not an attempt to explain everything in the universe. It is merely a platform to explain to explain that which can be observed, quantified, and measured in a consistent manner. Some scientists may believe that they'll eventually explain the whole universe, but science is merely a method for understanding the natural world.

"The underlying belief structure of science is that the universe is ultimately understandable by the hypothetical-empirical method. " What part of that says "everything?" What I meant was that the "universe" out there is ultimately ultimately understandable. Whether you are talking about macro or micro.

Because you are trying to say their scientific dogma... There is not.

What I'm trying to say actually is that scientists can be dogmatic. Science writ large cannot be dogmatic because it always has that peskly thing called sensory data getting in the way....you are right on that point. But science, ultimately, is a human activity, like any other and so we bring to it all our subjective experience and human biases. However, science as in the methodology seeks to weed this out and science as a method and a community has developed over the years to get better and better at doing that....but there are still alot of crap published by so called scientists that is really junk.

Fu-Pow

10-04-2006, 11:16 PM

Not really even close. I brought it up because it fit the discussion. Zen and the Art of MM was an introduction into Pirsig's idea of the Metaphysics of Quality. He goes into great detail explaining this through the entire book. Quality, he explains, is what gives the scientist his "intuition" to conduct one set of experiements over another, to test one hypothesis over the next. He then tries to blend his metaphysics of quality with eastern thought in an attempt to bridge the gap between mysticism, art and science; to reconcile the technological age with our "spirit".

You know Pirsig really lost me on all this Quality stuff. I've read it in the book and on fan websites of Pirsig and still doesn't make any sense to me. Basically, he laid out in the end that his professor was an Aristotelian, he was not. He was more like a Neo-platonian. Its been a while since I read the book so I can't be more specific.

Combat arts themsleves aren't on the radar of science. The "mystical" alternative healing methods used by Tai Chi Chuan, Chi Kung, Accupuncture, Accupressure, etc are though. Some very interesting studies are coming. Even some neuro-peptide pathways are being found to correspond with chi meridians.

What is a neuro-peptide pathway?

Many see them as something that has already been explained through kenetic linking and the production of force by the human body. However I can't speak for science as a whole. If one were to feel the claimed difference between an internal strike vs a external strike, then one may decide to study it.

As for your study, obviously I can't speak for it since I don't have your master to poke and prod. Would your master volunteer himself to be poked and prodded by scientists? Could we create a measurable hypothesis to work from and then conduct tests and aquire data to see the validity of that hypothesis? Why don't you apprach the local university's physiology department and see if they are interesting in testing your master out?

My whole point is that it is perfectly acceptable to believe things contrary to science or something that has not been proven by science. To each his own. I just won't accept it if you come on here and dress it up with flowery language and claim it is science. That's all really.

There's belief and there's experience and those are two different things. I have experienced someting contrary to my understanding of the human body and so I'm looking for answers. The way that scientific questions get attention is if people start speculating and looking for answers. I don't think I've ever represented my views as empirically tested, peer reviewed science. Just based on my own experience and knowledge. It is you that has brought in science to disagree with that experience and knowledge which IMO is really kind of silly.

Ford Prefect

10-05-2006, 03:01 AM

The underlying belief structure of science is that the universe is ultimately understandable by the hypothetical-empirical method. " What part of that says "everything?" What I meant was that the "universe" out there is ultimately ultimately understandable. Whether you are talking about macro or micro.

And I believe that is incorrect. Science doesn't state it will be able to explain everything as it is now. It doesn't state that the universe is ultimately understadable through its methods. It's methods are merely a tool a tool to understand that which can be identified and tested.

What I'm trying to say actually is that scientists can be dogmatic. Science writ large cannot be dogmatic because it always has that peskly thing called sensory data getting in the way....you are right on that point. But science, ultimately, is a human activity, like any other and so we bring to it all our subjective experience and human biases. However, science as in the methodology seeks to weed this out and science as a method and a community has developed over the years to get better and better at doing that....but there are still alot of crap published by so called scientists that is really junk.

Agreed. But that crap is summarily rejected by the scientific community.

Ford Prefect

10-05-2006, 03:12 AM

You know Pirsig really lost me on all this Quality stuff. I've read it in the book and on fan websites of Pirsig and still doesn't make any sense to me. Basically, he laid out in the end that his professor was an Aristotelian, he was not. He was more like a Neo-platonian. Its been a while since I read the book so I can't be more specific.

lol! I hear you. His books were similar to reading philosophy texts at times where smoke would just start pouring out your ears. ZAMM is an introduction into the concepts behind his metaphysics of quality. His following book then introduces and names the metaphysics of quality.

Along with science, I have a real passion for philosophy. In my opinion, philosophy actually provides more meaningful explanations than science. Science obviously produces more useful ones though from a sense of production and standards of living.

What is a neuro-peptide pathway?

Here is what neuropeptides are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide

There's belief and there's experience and those are two different things. I have experienced someting contrary to my understanding of the human body and so I'm looking for answers. The way that scientific questions get attention is if people start speculating and looking for answers. I don't think I've ever represented my views as empirically tested, peer reviewed science. Just based on my own experience and knowledge. It is you that has brought in science to disagree with that experience and knowledge which IMO is really kind of silly.

That's fine by me. Actually, I haven't brought science in any disagreement with you. My sole disagreement was with Bob who first used "science" to qualify his statements. That's what I took exception to, and that is the only reason why I've been drawn into into this protracted talk of connective tissue properties.

If somebody wants to believe X in the face of science, then I may say if you're fine with believing contrary to what any scientific evidence is suggesting, then that's cool. I'll also say it's not worth debating at that point since we'd be talking apples and oranges.

If somebody believes X and attempts to say that science leads them to believe that way, well then we can talk science.

TaiChiBob

10-05-2006, 06:42 AM

Greetings..

If i may, i would like to further clarify my reference to "science".. previous posts indicate "science" as a process.. that process might begin with a hunch and end with a "proof".. understanding that "proofs" merely satisfy conditions known at any particular time, and are subject to change based on new evidence.. In my personal reference to "science" i am referring to a place in the process where scientists are actively investigating the subject, i.e.: connective tissues.. the current condition of the process, based on investigation and testing of theory, suggests that there is a depth of critical involvement by the CTS, that, when better understood, will likely change the accepted medical model for energy conservation, treatment of numerous human conditions, and overall general health.. admittedly, the current condition of the scientific process fails to provide "proof" for many of the theories, but.. it hasn't disproven those theories, either.. so, my reference to, "science and experience", indicates my interest in the scientific process and its current research into this field AND my personal experiences attempting to use the evidence currently available.. My personal result indicates that there is a point of diminished returns when one's focus is on weight and resistance training without a balanced focus on holistic unified system coherence.. that, ultimately, there is a balance wherein the CTS plays an active and enhancing role in the aspiring Martial Artist's training.. also, to capitulate to Ford's demands. i should have stated: "ultimately, the scientific process and experience reveals to me the connective tissue as a higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist..

So, i understand Ford's position in the dialogue.. but, i feel it's a bit draconian to reject someone's claim of science as a contributor to the issue unless there has been a "peer reviewed", generally accepted, proof.. but, that is simply individual standards, which differ according to preference.. i can accept science as the active pursuit of the topic in question, where science has not disproven the assertions stated, and.. science has sufficient evidence to continue the pursuit of that topic.. Ford may claim a victory for science, here.. certainly, he can claim to have prevailed in forcing me to recant the offending quote.. i concur. Yet, i feel no less appropriate in citing science as a source for my conclusions.. i take this opportunity to return this thread to more productive dialogue, i choose to "invest in loss"..

Ford: I have no ill-will, here.. the exercise has been rewarding in many ways.. we differ, and that is also appropriate, it fosters dialogue and interest.. i have found even more interesting aspects of the CTS in my searches relative to our dialogue, so.. i have gained according to my goals.. If, in my exhuberance, i have offended you or anyone else, i offer sincere apologies.. But, i am done with this particular dialogue, i leave Saturday (10/7) for a week in the Southern Appalachain Mountains.. it's our annual Taiji classes' campout, we hope to experience Taiji among nature's autumn splendor and distance ourselves from the maddness, at least for a decent interval.. so, i leave this issue to those with more to share..

I do not sense the potential of the CTS to be "junk science", my experiences with its properties that enhance my understanding of Taiji have been among the best in my nearly 20 years of Internal Arts experiences.. i hope i have at least inspired some people to investigate the issue and form their own opinions..

Be well...

spiralstair

10-05-2006, 07:20 AM

Well done, Guys... an amicable and mature result, enlightening to all.

Now , let's return this thread to its real topic...
Scott, you ignorant nincompoop!:D

Ford Prefect

10-05-2006, 07:32 AM

I understand where you are coming from, and I think now you understand where I am coming from. I simply draw the line at spculative science that is not peer-reviewed or accepted via the peer-review process. If we didn't draw the line there, then anybody could say anything and claim it to be science. I see that as a slippery slope, and having personally seen and fought ignorant attacks against science in my community (evolution), I try to stop misinformation about science from spreading.

In all honesty, there were two reasons why I was asking for peer-reviewed or proof of general acceptance. The first is obvious and was to get you to restate your opinion relative to science. The second was an honest curiousity as to whether there have been any major steps forward in that area that I wasn't aware. I try to stay abrest of developments in many scholarly pursuits, but being human, many slip by me unnoticed.

If you get to chance to review the study links I posted, I posted some about stored elastic energy in tendons increasing the force a muscle can exert and conserving energy in the process. Of course this stored energy comes from the muscles and then is transferred back to the muscles in order to be turned into movement, but I can see the avenue open for structure and alignment causing a transfer of load to the tendons and the possibility of that when combined with muscular exertion allowing one to net more force output in their movement. It's an interesting area for research, and I'm always open to advancements in all aspects of science.

Have fun on your retreat. I spend quite a bit of time in the northern Appalachins. I'm headed to Peru later this year for a hike in the sacred valley up to Machu Picchu. My wife and I are excited about practicing tai chi, qi qong, and yoga in the mountains overlooking Incan ruins. :)

Ford Prefect

10-05-2006, 07:35 AM

BTW, spiralstair, I hate you and all that you stand for. ;)

Nick Forrer

10-05-2006, 07:38 AM

Actually that's part and parcel to Kant's critique which was written in the 1500's (if I remember correctly).

Your time line is a little off. Kant's 'Critique of pure reason' was written and published in the late 1700's. It was a response to Humes sceptical criticism of science and in particular his criticism of the ideas of 'causation' and of 'universal laws'. Kant (who had written on scientific subjects up until that point and who took the view that Newton had more or less got at the 'truth' of the universe) famously said that 'Hume awoke me from my dogmatic slumbers'.

Ford Prefect

10-05-2006, 09:12 AM

Fu-Pow

10-05-2006, 11:31 AM

lol! I hear you. His books were similar to reading philosophy texts at times where smoke would just start pouring out your ears. ZAMM is an introduction into the concepts behind his metaphysics of quality. His following book then introduces and names the metaphysics of quality.

Along with science, I have a real passion for philosophy. In my opinion, philosophy actually provides more meaningful explanations than science. Science obviously produces more useful ones though from a sense of production and standards of living.

I like philosophy too but it can become a little divorced from reality at times. Have you read any of William James' stuff? I just finished reading a book by Peter Watson called Ideas: A History From Fire to Freud. He says that James was a pragmatist which I'm not familiar with, I'm interested to read his stuff. You might also look into Ken Wilber, he has some really interesting ideas that are a fusion of western and eastern philosophy. Not sure I really agree with some of his ideas, that, for example, that atoms have some kind of "conciousness" or that mystical states are "higher" than everyday rational states. He's a big fan of Plotinus (student of Plato) and Sri Auribindo and the "Great Chain of Being."

However, his view that there are 6 "native" perspectives in the world is pretty neat, basically 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives and then interior, exterior, singular and collective. So what we are describing as "science" is a 3rd person account (or at least tries to be) of a singular (reductionist science) and collective (systems sciences) exterior reality. Psychology is a 3rd person study of a singular interior reality. Cultural anthropology is a 3rd person study of a collective interior reality. Meditation is a 1st person study of a singular interior reality. So on and so forth. But then he takes it to the mystical again that, all these perspectives are an illusion.

Anyhoo, he's got some neat ideas if you can get past the New Age mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Here is what neuropeptides are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide

Oh sorry...I know what a neuro-peptide is, I'm just wondering what you mean by "pathway." Neuro-peptides function between the synapses of neurons so are you talking about nerve cell pathways?

That's fine by me. Actually, I haven't brought science in any disagreement with you. My sole disagreement was with Bob who first used "science" to qualify his statements. That's what I took exception to, and that is the only reason why I've been drawn into into this protracted talk of connective tissue properties.

I agree with you. You can't rely on internet sources as "science" to back you up. Anyone can put up a page, use some scientific mumbo jumbo and try to make their case for some ridiculous claim, health or otherwise.

If somebody wants to believe X in the face of science, then I may say if you're fine with believing contrary to what any scientific evidence is suggesting, then that's cool. I'll also say it's not worth debating at that point since we'd be talking apples and oranges.

If somebody believes X and attempts to say that science leads them to believe that way, well then we can talk science.

From my perspective, what I'm saying is that my personal, anecdotal experience has led me to believe that there is more than one way to utilize the human body. As a "man of science" I'm looking to science for an explanation of how it works. I don't see it because I don't believe that this particular phenomena has been studied, just as "alternative" medicines (ie native medical technologies) were ignored for a long time by allopathic medicine as being unscientific. But it works in the martial context....why? I don't believe in "unknown forces" or some vitalistic force called Chi, so there has go to be a physiological reason for how this works.

However, as a pracitioner of the art you have to put that aside sometimes and just go with what your teacher tells you. If he says weightlifting, for example, is bad then you have to go along with what he says. Why? because he has the skill and you don't. He has walked the path to that skill and you haven't. He has the experience and you don't. If you want his skill then you can't always question everything. That's the nature of the student, teacher relationship and alot of it is based on trust.

Dingo983

10-05-2006, 01:55 PM

However, as a pracitioner of the art you have to put that aside sometimes and just go with what your teacher tells you. If he says weightlifting, for example, is bad then you have to go along with what he says. Why? because he has the skill and you don't. He has walked the path to that skill and you haven't. He has the experience and you don't. If you want his skill then you can't always question everything. That's the nature of the student, teacher relationship and alot of it is based on trust. [quote]

Maybe the teacher never utilized weightlifting and just assumes it is bad for you. I think you should be able to approach a teacher after class and ask a question. A teacher who will not answer questions probably needs a lesson in humility or some aspect of what he is teaching, he questions himself.

I'll stick with the country theory. If I step in a pile of brown stuff that looks like bulls**t, smells like bulls**t, when I scrape it off my shoe it has the texture of bulls**t,, and when I KO someone who tries to use this on me http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6&q=push+hands
and he wakes up and says, why do I taste bulls**t..........It's bulls**t

I'm a simple guy. I like things simple, black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, it works or does'nt.

Fu-Pow

10-05-2006, 02:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BBXOmYo6fE&mode=related&search=

Your vid post wouldn't load up, but this is what my teacher's push hands looks like.

People tend to see push hands as some kind of passive training exercise or "sensitivity drill." True it does build sensitivity but push hands can be a very "vigorous" exercise. If you get two players of high skill then it may not look like much going on from the outside but there is an "inner game" going on for balance and position that doesn't have anything to do with our classic conception of who is stronger.

When you see somebody go flying (and there not helping like what you see in a lot of videos and is totally obvious.) it is because their balance has been upset or the opponent has found a leverage point to exploit.

Taiji is not just "leading the opponent to emptiness" and upsetting balance, although that can be part of it. It can also be finding the point where the player is holding on with external strength and using that as a place against them.

When I push with my teacher he always seems to find the place on my body that is tight, where I am "holding on" and can push me around there. On him I can find nowhere to push that he can't change or hide. His body is empy and full at the same like water.

There is a famous story about Chen Fa-ke, one of the most famous modern exponents of Chen Taiji and also my teacher's, teacher. As I recall it.....Apparently he was doing a demonstration and a famous wrestler offered to get up and "play" with him. They put hands on each other in a starting wrestling position and someone said go. After a few seconds, nothing happened. The wrestler broke away and smiled. Later after the demonstration people asked him what happened. He said "there was nowhere to push on Chen Fa-ke."He knew he was beaten without even tryihng. His whole game was based leverage and he couldn't find a point of leverage.

Its just a story, but trying to illustrate my point.

cjurakpt

10-05-2006, 05:40 PM

Your time line is a little off. Kant's 'Critique of pure reason' was written and published in the late 1700's. It was a response to Humes sceptical criticism of science and in particular his criticism of the ideas of 'causation' and of 'universal laws'. Kant (who had written on scientific subjects up until that point and who took the view that Newton had more or less got at the 'truth' of the universe) famously said that 'Hume awoke me from my dogmatic slumbers'.

gotta luv that David Hume - something about "just because I see one billiard ball strike another, doesn't mean that's what caused the struck ball to move"...

anyway, it's preety simple, IMHO:
scientific method is based on an essentially linear process: A backs up B and what not - we ALWAYS know on what basis a claim is made and substantiated; there are no "leaps of faith", because these are based on intuition, which is an essentially non-linear process: intuition looks at interrelationships that may follow a non-linear progression: for example, I can look at the ebb and flow of the tide at the seashore, and find an analogy to lymphatic fluids in the human body move and derive a way to manually treat dysfunction in the body based on my intuitive reasoning (this is basically what Sutherland, DO did): I may or may not have a techincal grasp of tidal function, and i may or may not have a technical knowledge of lymphatic function based on scientific peer-reviewed studies, but regardless of what my knowledge base is, I make that association - hence, it is non-linear, because the basis from which I make that connection is potentially manifold; now, what I do with that hunch also can vary: i can go reasearch both phenomenna and attempt to substantiate my hunch based on comparisons of data between the two fields (e.g - periodicity of tidal flow and lymphatic flow) - let's say that I find plausable evidence to support an interrelationship - now, i can go out and develop my treatment protocol, and start using it on patients; I can derrrive lots of good anecdotal success stories, which, while useful, don't really get to the heart of what is actually going on when I use thie new discovery of mine; so I decide to run a double blind RCT to see if there is a measureable effect of my newly designed treatment approach; now, I may find that there is or there is not depending on how I measure outcome, so I take a measure that has previously been tested for validity and reliability (the two foundations of every single scientific study), like an analogue pain-scale and have people use that to rate their symtoms before and after; I compare this to either a control group of no treatment or sham treatment or both; now, if there is no statistical significance between the groups, then we can't say that the group I treated didn't get better because of what I did, or just by chance; but, here;s the kicker, if there is statistical significance, we only know one thing - that what i did had an effect not possible by chance alone - BUT, what we don't know is WHY IT WORKED IN THE FIRST PLACE - remember, my intuitive hunch was based on observation of what I decided were similar phenomena and bolstered by my understanding/research of the two seperate phennomenna and correlation of the two; I developed a protoco, i applied it, and there was an effect - but I don't know why necessarilly...

my point is that it can be tricky to tease out the interrelationsips between intution and rational thought in certain cases because one can flow into the other; for myself, I am trained in research (both reading and desinging) at the graduate level; at the same time, I also utilize Sutherland's cranial approach in a decidely non-objective capacity - I do lots of things every day clinically that are based on reaserach studies, and other things that just "seem to work" based on my subjective experience - what that requires is a clear concept of what one is doing and why

in tai chi / chi kung, my personal challenge is to try and describe everything in terms of western anatomy/phys/kinesiology (not the Applied Kinese used by chiros - that's totaly different) - I think that using the CTS / tensegrity framework is very useful (it certainly works well in reagrds to manual therapy); what's iportant is that some of the basis for CTS is found in scientific literature, and some of it in the more philosophical literature; Fuller's approach straddles the two, so again, it can be hard to differentiate between fact and metaphor; using tensegrity does help account for some of the seemingly non-linear properties of body function; eg - treating the foot to make a headache go away is no where substantiated by contemporary orthopedic research, but it doesn't conflict with the accepted notion of the kinetic chain and how forces are distributed mechanically through the body;

certainly, CT is non-contractile - which means that it is not under conscious control; however, there is a range of experience that I am personally aware of that seems to produce movment in the body that does not originate in the consicious mind: of course, the muscles still have to contrac to move, but it seems as if the the inherent tensions within the CTS are what are informing the neurological system to move in certain patterns, which results in a phenommena many call "unwinding" - the patient's body moves through a single or myriad patterns that are conjectured as being from force vectors in the CTS that are the imprint of old traumas (physical or otherwise); subsequent to and unwinding most people feel significacantly better; but the reality is that we don't know why - the unwinding metaphor is very useful, but it really doesn't tell us what precisely is going on physiologically - we can infer based on knowledge of the various systems, but that's about it; anyway, during practice of the form or even in push-hands, I have experienced what I perceive as similar forces at work, but not operating in a pathological pattern as might be found in an injured client - again, I am making a leap here by comparison of this nature; the CTS analogue, based on my personal understanding, does not conflict with this range of experience, so it is a useful metaphor to describe what's hapening (remember, all of TCM is essentially a useful metaphor); I can also go to some of the more accepted research on balance, mucle function, etc. to substantiate what I think is going on in the body as well - it doesn't prove my point necessariily, but it also doesn't disprove it - in other words, if my experience and metaphor are not contradicted by available objective reasearch, it doesn't prove my point, but at least it doesn't require that I rethink my whole paradigm

so, again, it's a little tricky moving between the two worlds: i remember a conversation with Ford some time ago where I described my approach to strength training and he pointed out it was in conflict with much of the accepted reasearch available: I didn't disagree, but I was also not put off, because I believe that most of that reasearch is on a non-pathological population, so it doesn't exactly apply; also in my personal anecdotal experience, what I did worked very well in most cases (certainly not all); at the same time, I certainly wouldn't use my anecdotal intuition to train a top level athlete - I'd go see what was done before that worked, and apply it accordingly - my personal bias is that I prefer intuitive approach over rational linear, so that's why I work the way I do with the clients I treat, as opposed to working at the US Olympic Training Center in Co. Springs (which I was so a shoe-in to do, 'cause my dad's a former Olympic Coach - life's funny, huh?)

I think that intuition gets you past the walls that science, by it's very nature, is not allowed to break through, and science keeps you from running too far afield with intuition...both are useful depending on the circumstance - just don't get 'em confused...

cjurakpt

10-05-2006, 05:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BBXOmYo6fE&mode=related&search=

Your vid post wouldn't load up, but this is what my teacher's push hands looks like.

jeez, FP, how good can he be when he's getting thrown around the whole time by that other guy? ;) :p :D

cjurakpt

10-05-2006, 05:53 PM

I can see the avenue open for structure and alignment causing a transfer of load to the tendons and the possibility of that when combined with muscular exertion allowing one to net more force output in their movement. It's an interesting area for research, and I'm always open to advancements in all aspects of science.

I think that this is what is realisticallyhappening: in other words, we can't deny that without muscle contraction there is no movement; we can also look at the relationship of agaonist / antagonist force couples in terms of facilitation / inhibition patterns to see how habitual patterns of movement can interfere with optimally efficient movment (we can certainly add in a psyhcological dimension to this as well); so, if you have a system where extrinsic force is transfered with minimal resistance from the point of entry to the ground and then back out again with minimal loss, and then augmented by the GRF generated from intrinsic force of the body coupled with the muscular contribution, it makes for some interesting food for thought and definitely an areaa for some good research to substantiate my intuitive fellings about it...

BTW, as far as weight training: I personally only see it as "detrimental" to internal practice if it produces neuromuscular firing patterns that kick in habitually, regardless of the nature of the input; it's not about bulk to me - it's about responsiveness - so no reason why a skilled internalist can't also be physically strong as well...

Fu-Pow

10-06-2006, 11:06 AM

Chris-

You make some great points about intution vs logic and the usefulness of both to martial arts and beyond. I'm a "right brainer" myself so I am always looking for patterns, connections, analogies that further understanding. Where as other's might want a more linear, logical argument followed up with facts (data). I think both way of using the brain are useful and we should respect both of them because ultimately intuition is a part of science but obviously science doesn't stop there.

I think that this is what is realisticallyhappening: in other words, we can't deny that without muscle contraction there is no movement; we can also look at the relationship of agaonist / antagonist force couples in terms of facilitation / inhibition patterns to see how habitual patterns of movement can interfere with optimally efficient movment (we can certainly add in a psyhcological dimension to this as well);

It's interesting you bring this up. In my Taiji class last night my teacher was explaining to us that "holding on" in the body is often symptomatic of "holding on" in the mind. That if you create "space" in the mind that the body will relax and create "space." I use quotes because we are talking in metaphors, not literally.

When you think about how animals move, a bear or a cat they just move. There movement is fluid and elastic. There is no higher mental function to get "in the way." So pound for pound animals are stronger than we are, they don't get in there own way, so to speak...the don't "hold on" they just move.

so, if you have a system where extrinsic force is transfered with minimal resistance from the point of entry to the ground and then back out again with minimal loss,

Yes yes yes. This starts with the force of gravity but applies to force applied by a martial arts opponent as well.

and then augmented by the GRF generated from intrinsic force of the body coupled with the muscular contribution, it makes for some interesting food for thought and definitely an areaa for some good research to substantiate my intuitive fellings about it...

When you say GRF do you mean ground rebound effect? You mentioned this before in another discussion. What do you mean by this?

BTW, as far as weight training: I personally only see it as "detrimental" to internal practice if it produces neuromuscular firing patterns that kick in habitually, regardless of the nature of the input; it's not about bulk to me - it's about responsiveness - so no reason why a skilled internalist can't also be physically strong as well...

Unfortunately, lifting weights creates patterns of stimulus and response in the body. When encountering an external force, the force is met with isolated force to counter act it. It conditions you to "hold on" to the force instead of transferring it through to the ground, storing it in the structure and then releasing it back out.

If you could increase strength without isolating muscles or groups of muscles then I believe that would be best. That's why I think body weight exercises that engage the whole body in the force of gravity are best. The more "internal" that you could make those the better.....as per the principles you described above. The best of course is internal practice and Qi Gong because that engages the whole body but supplementally I think yoga, pilates, calisthenics, etc. would be best.

One big deficit of internal practice is that I don't think it does much to increase cardio-respiratory function. So I think running or some kind of intensive cardio is essential for any serious martial artist...internal or otherwise.

cjurakpt

10-06-2006, 06:20 PM

When you say GRF do you mean ground rebound effect? You mentioned this before in another discussion. What do you mean by this?

ground reaction force: to me, this is what "kick starts" the CTS effect - it seems subjectively that after I exhale all the way, the reflexive inhale that follows creates an impulse through the body that pushes against the ground, sending GRF up the kinetic chain, and "suspending" the spine momentarilly within the soft tissue structures (this, I believe is what the whole idea of suspended from the top means - your not suspended from the string, you are bouyed by GRF...)

Unfortunately, lifting weights creates patterns of stimulus and response in the body. When encountering an external force, the force is met with isolated force to counter act it. It conditions you to "hold on" to the force instead of transferring it through to the ground, storing it in the structure and then releasing it back out.
If you could increase strength without isolating muscles or groups of muscles then I believe that would be best. That's why I think body weight exercises that engage the whole body in the force of gravity are best. The more "internal" that you could make those the better.....as per the principles you described above. The best of course is internal practice and Qi Gong because that engages the whole body but supplementally I think yoga, pilates, calisthenics, etc. would be best.

I would tend to agree in the sense that you can do resistance training several ways, with the most functional would be closed chain eccenttic type stuff, which is typified by what the weightbearing leg does when you are descending a flight of steps - the quads and glutes contract eccentrically to lower you with gravity with control, and it's closed chain because the distal extremity is fixed; as a side note, for years in rehab they';d have people do the opposite: open chain concentric knee extensions, with a crap load of weight and then they'd try to ambulate the pt. who couldn't stand up...

One big deficit of internal practice is that I don't think it does much to increase cardio-respiratory function. So I think running or some kind of intensive cardio is essential for any serious martial artist...internal or otherwise.

the way we do yi jin jing, you're sweating like a dog at the end - some of the movements are very vigorous; also, we do a fast version of the form, so that can get you moving as well - of course, it's not like running on atreatmill - the hard part istaying "internal" when you move fast - as i like to say, you keep the net level of tension in the body constant: so if you increase tension in one area, you balance it out elsewhere...its a littl ehard to explain...also, internal practice doesn't really advocate generating an aerobic response - it's seen as too out of balance, too stressful on the body - not saying I agree completely, it's more a philosophical thing in a way, in terms of the relationship of fitness to health - it's a different paradigm

Fu-Pow

10-07-2006, 11:42 AM

ground reaction force: to me, this is what "kick starts" the CTS effect - it seems subjectively that after I exhale all the way, the reflexive inhale that follows creates an impulse through the body that pushes against the ground, sending GRF up the kinetic chain, and "suspending" the spine momentarilly within the soft tissue structures (this, I believe is what the whole idea of suspended from the top means - your not suspended from the string, you are bouyed by GRF...)

I know what you are saying. However, how do you account for the fact that in Taij at least the head should always feel "as if suspended from a string." I looked up ground reaction force and it seems to be the force that is "pushing up" as a response to the body "pushing down" in the force of gravity. (BTW, I'm horrible at mechanics, better with electricity and best in biology.)

So what I'm thinking is that you have the force of gravity pushing down and the counter force pushing up so the net force should be zero. Your body should not be doing anything to impede that "pushing up" of the GRF, including holding on with clenched muscles so that the force can go to the top of the head. You're not actively pulling anything apart or pushing anything down...you just find that spot where the pull/push up happens naturally.

I would tend to agree in the sense that you can do resistance training several ways, with the most functional would be closed chain eccenttic type stuff, which is typified by what the weightbearing leg does when you are descending a flight of steps - the quads and glutes contract eccentrically to lower you with gravity with control, and it's closed chain because the distal extremity is fixed; as a side note, for years in rehab they';d have people do the opposite: open chain concentric knee extensions, with a crap load of weight and then they'd try to ambulate the pt. who couldn't stand up...

I'm having a hard part picturing what you mean by "closed chain" could you provide an example.

the way we do yi jin jing, you're sweating like a dog at the end - some of the movements are very vigorous; also, we do a fast version of the form, so that can get you moving as well - of course, it's not like running on atreatmill - the hard part istaying "internal" when you move fast - as i like to say, you keep the net level of tension in the body constant: so if you increase tension in one area, you balance it out elsewhere...its a littl ehard to explain...also, internal practice doesn't really advocate generating an aerobic response - it's seen as too out of balance, too stressful on the body - not saying I agree completely, it's more a philosophical thing in a way, in terms of the relationship of fitness to health - it's a different paradigm

Yes, I know what you are saying about the paradigm. The idea in Taiji is that you should be able to dispatch your opponent without even breaking a sweat, so what good is cardio? However, i think mostly I look at it as a way to keep my weight down. Sure, if you could do Taiji all day you'd stay trim but all of us don't have that luxury.

cjurakpt

10-07-2006, 07:24 PM

I know what you are saying. However, how do you account for the fact that in Taij at least the head should always feel "as if suspended from a string." I looked up ground reaction force and it seems to be the force that is "pushing up" as a response to the body "pushing down" in the force of gravity. (BTW, I'm horrible at mechanics, better with electricity and best in biology.)

So what I'm thinking is that you have the force of gravity pushing down and the counter force pushing up so the net force should be zero. Your body should not be doing anything to impede that "pushing up" of the GRF, including holding on with clenched muscles so that the force can go to the top of the head. You're not actively pulling anything apart or pushing anything down...you just find that spot where the pull/push up happens naturally.

pretty much; the first of our tai chi ten principles translates as "empty the collar, suspend the top" - the idea is that when you release the tension in the sub-occipital (collar) region, you allow those muscles to lengthen, and this allows a greater degree of capital flexion (occipital condyles gliding posteriorly on superior facets of C1 vertebra - basically what happens when you do a slight chin tuck), this is the top most piece of the spine, and by aligning it properly, it yields a sort of floating sensation: i see the GRF as a plum of water, and the skull is a ball being "suspended" on the top of that plum - nothing in there about a string doing the suspending, BTW...

I'm having a hard part picturing what you mean by "closed chain" could you provide an example.

if you were sitting in a chair with your feet on the floor and knees fleed to 90? open chain would be when you contract your quads to straighten your knee, your foot comes off the ground; in closed chain, you would keep the feet on the floor and extend your knee by standing up; again, open chain means the distal extremity is moving (a palm strike = open chain triceps); closed chain means the distal extremity stays fixed (a push up = closed chain triceps)