Internal training of strength

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
21

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…

22

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.

23

wow, you guys are on fire…

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. :frowning:

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.

24

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

25

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. :wink:

26

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.

27

[QUOTE=fiercest tiger;707819]

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.

[/QUOTE]

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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.

32

[QUOTE=spiralstair;708128]

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’

[/QUOTE]

Hello Spiralstair,

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

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

33

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

34

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..

35

Some articles that refute Ford Prefects position:

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

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

36

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, ones 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 its 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.

37

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.

38

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 Sonnons concepts no scientific evidence has been presented. Therefore his comments do not actually refute anything Ford has stated because Fords 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 espns 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.

39

[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;708645]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.[/quote]

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 Sonnons concepts no scientific evidence has been presented. Therefore his comments do not actually refute anything Ford has stated because Fords 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 espns 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

40

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