Internal training of strength

[qiphlow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Some articles that refute Ford Prefects position:

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

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

[Fu-Pow]

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]

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]

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.
______

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.

[Fu-Pow]

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]

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

[Fu-Pow]

Kind of irrelevant to the crux of this debate.

[Scott R. Brown]

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]

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]

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]

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.