We call it Hua Butt. KC:D
Hahahaha…I’ll get there sooner or later…hahaha…
In that clusterhump of an old post, I asked Kwai to show me ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY pertaining to martial arts stance work and any truth to the specific malarky he is trying so hard to sound authorative about in this post.
…still waiting.:rolleyes:
Bj 2
Not malarky any more RD has done the study on himself. You should try it too maybe you will improve as well. So let me think the MA are over 1600 years old and have been doing stance training for a while. All of a sudden you and others are going to come in and say it doesnt work because… oh yeah you want a study to prove it works. Give me a break. KC Again I applaud RD well done.
Kwaichang…
I don’t recall being rude to you. Maybe kidding around but…
You don’t seem to have seen this:[QUOTE=Mr Punch;769131]Would you like to repost them on this thread…? I can’t remember which ones you’re talking about and I don’t want to trawl through that train wreck again!
While you’re at it, perhaps you’d like to highlight the parts that don’t agree with my PoV: since my PoV has always just been that while stance training is good for you the effects will plateau fairly short-term… If you have any studies that will contradict that please let me see them (again?) and I’ll stand (for a long time in horse stance!) corrected! :D[/QUOTE]It’s kind of the same as what BJ II was asking for, except I’m even willing to consider what you’ve written without even direct references to specific studies, since you are qualified in whatever it was (not being disrespectful - just can’t remember!).
So post them here, and let’s have a look.
If, in the meanwhile, you’re claiming that because RD says his agility and footwork have improved due to stance training without quantifying his improvement, that that is strong evidence in favour of stance training in some way, I might have to question the quality of your scientific education!
Don’t get me wrong - I’m still hedging my bets and saying we don’t know the extent of the benefits. However, if you are going to categorically state that however many hundred years of possibly erroneous and time-wasting training philosophy and one geezer on an internet forum prove your point… :rolleyes:
In the old days 1971-1977 my teacher taught us a form calling out move by move until we had the form and the moves , we would hold the stance for approx 20-30 seconds each then we would shorten the stance time and add speed over time. Not only was the form better rooted but our speed was better because I guess we didnt have to think about stance. I long for those days again it was fun learning that way. Students of today learn 180 deg opposite theyu learn a form start to finish and then add stance work fast to slow instead of the other way around. Maybe this explains the shallow ability of those trained in modern times and ways. KC:)
You are wanting studies on stance training to my knowledge there arent any persay so I posted studies on isometrics as this is a parallel to stance work in my opinion i even posted new concepts to the same. by 2 doctors forgot their name. BTW I didnt think I was being rude if I was, sorry. But all you guys seem to want to see are studies for this and that and not just you. KC
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;769129]
Reply]
… [/quote]OK, so it’s hard stance training: I know what that entails, I’ve done it myself.
…Xi Xue Jing.
BTW, what’s that?
The rest of your post is interesting, but is pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence. Now, I’m not saying anecdotal evidence doesn’t have its place, but it also has its credible limits.
I asked you by what yardstick you measured your improvement: you came back with stuff like: I can turn on a dime. This is not evidence. Even assuming that we take the (not particularly difficult or defined) skill of ‘turning’ as some kind of criteria: what was it you could turn on before? A frisbee? A bus steering wheel? Without a previous frame of reference, you’re not making any quantifiable statement.
Sounds pedantic I know. But like I said, if all you’re doing for weeks is concentrating on static, rooted feeling, then when you start moving again of course you’re going to feel like it’s lighter!
You haven’t provided us with any evidence. Even anecdotal evidence from someone else you train with who says, ‘Yeah, I sure have noticed RD’s looking spry/packing a better punch these days - must be all that stance training, cos he sucked royal ass before then…!’ would be better than you just saying, ‘Well, I feel better!’!
Now, do you get my drift?
[QUOTE=kwaichang;769198]You are wanting studies on stance training to my knowledge there arent any persay so I posted studies on isometrics as this is a parallel to stance work in my opinion i even posted new concepts to the same. [/quote]No, that’s fine - studies on isometrics would be OK. But you said you had something which you’d posted before that disproved my point (whatever you held that to be)…? I’d be more than happy to see that.
Again, it’d be nice if you could remember/check, as I’d be interested to read up on it.
No offence taken - I know it’s difficult to reply to everything :)… but I was bit concerned that you were lumping me in with BJII - much as I like him (like a rude, incontinent uncle you just can’t shut up!) he has different posting style and different questions. Some of what we are saying overlaps, but if you fall into the trap of replying to ‘what you guys are saying’ it can be just another way of avoiding the issue - we are not all saying the same thing: though we do all seem to want some evidence. I don’t think that’s so bad.
Case in point.
I’m going to go with the structural argument here.
When you do a bunch of stance work, you don’t get any stronger. However - and especially if you’ve laid off for awhile - your structure improves.
When your structure is good, it takes less muscular effort to do it. Kinda like when you haven’t squatted or benched in a while, and you spend a great deal of time just getting the muscle memory to “lock” your frame and movement groove in place.
That seems pretty straightforward and obvious to me.
I’d say there’s certainly a diminishing return on investment here though.
This section describes the application of the IBX-H101 exercise … www.mdsystems.com/evidenc.htm thuis study shows a decrease in BP with Isometrics
AthleticQuickness.com this is on quickness and speed with athletes
www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol21/morrisse.htm this one is interesting
www.cttaichi.com/articles/kneestrength.htm This one is close. KC
There is so much out there but these support my argument for the most part.
KC
"why do we hear so much about how the deep, immovable stances of southern kung fu were overwhelmingly DROPPED in favor of more narrow and mobile stances???
Old Hung style gave way to Wong Fei Hung style Hung fist"
I have to dissagree with you on that. From what I have seen of old Hung Kuen, and from what alot of Sifus have told me, Hung Kuen was originally a narrower more upright horse, and the deep immovable stances are actually a more recent development. In fact, if you look at photos of Lam Sai-Wing-still in his prime, his stances were not the deep exagerrated stances you see many people today using.
Usually, that story is heard from alot of WC guys telling their version of the development of the style.
I guess it depends whose stories and “Traditional History” you want to go with. I have heard so many versions, each contradicting the other, at this point, who really cares?
…Xi Xue Jing.
BTW, what’s that?
Reply]
It is the seated Marrow, Brain Washing Qi Gong. I do it to recover from the heavy stance work…since I have exhausted my ability to stand. I sit and do Xi Xue Jing to help speed up the recovery a bit.
It’s like a seated slow, deep breathing exercises with various hand postures.
KC,
I’m not trying to be a contrarian, mostly because I don’t much care about this argument (whatever people want to do is fine by me, as long as they aren’t kidding themselves about what they are accomplishing), BUT…
The first 2 sites are basically advertisements for products. The second is a review of training research that is over a decade old, and the last talks about the effect of taichi on old, probably inactive, people. Of COURSE there’s going to be improvement for them! It doesn’t address the effects on highly trained athletes or on active healthy not old people.
I think there is probably some benefit to stance training, but I’m betting it has to do with structure and “grooving” the movement to go from one trained structure to the next. So, it seems to me that you of course will experience improvement - especially if, as RD did, you are starting again after taking time off.
My real point thoughb, is that the sites you posted are not especially compelling.
Current, peer reviewed articles focused on healthy, active adults or highly trained athletes would be far more persuasive, IMO.
Yeah I know but there were so many I thought these would pacify. KC
Why would you think these would pacify? If anything, they detract from your argument because it makes it seem as though your sources are not terribly credible/applicable.
same old after all these years
Why are people still arguing about the strength benefits of doing stance training? Are people being told that the traditional chinese way of building strength is to stand still in various stances? That seems a little silly. Traditional chinese martial artists practice stances to practice coordinating the opening and closing of the hips, the movement of the lower back, the settling of the pelvic bone, sinking of the weight, extension and rotation of the spine, and the pressing of the feet against the ground, just to mention the most obvious movement principles involved here. They are doing so in the context of a systematic training regime to learn how to use these principles to produce and to handle force against an uncooperative opponent. Right? And if they want to efficiently build leg strenght, they will do squats, lunges and extensions like everyone else. There’s no “modern” versus “traditional” or “Chinese” versus “Euro-American” arguments here, and traditional chinese martial artists are doing their traditions a disservice in pretending otherwise.
traditional chinese martial artists are doing their traditions a disservice in pretending otherwise.
Reply]
But the MMA nutriders bring it.
[QUOTE=kwaichang;769061]There is another thread and as I said there stances are an important part of MA training. To answer your question, from a biomechanical view stance work strengthens the joint as well as the muscle “see other thread”. The proprioception is improved from holding stances the longer the hold the greater the fatigue the more difficult it is to control the stance and angles of the joints thus improving endurance and placement awareness. This will help with transitionary movements as all movement is is movement with proprioception emphasis. KC[/QUOTE]
“joints” are not strengthened - only the muscles around the joints are; joints are passivestructures consisting of non-contractile tisse (capsule, ligaments); the role of ligmaents and capsule are to protect the joint at end range from disruption in the event that the muscles don’t contract in time or strongly enough; if put under repetative direct stress, tey actually get weaker; as for stengthening the muscle, holding a stance at a single position does nothing more than strengthen the muscle at that position via an isometric contraction - which has minimal bearing on the way the muscle functions when moving concentrically or eccentrically (typically the more important for joint protection) - and studies have conclusively shown that you get about only a 20? spill-over in each direction from isometric training, so to get a full muscle effect you’d have to do it at several points in the range
functional proprioception (e.g. - dynamic) is not going to be trained by standing in a stance, for the main reason that you are doing it on a level, stable surface with your eyes open; if you really want to train proprio, stand on an uneven, unstable surface with your eyes closed (heck, try standing on a level stable surface on one foot with eyes closed - good luck with that);
training under increased fatigue is not optimal, especially if you are doing any sort of neuromuscular education - cliniclaly, having pele train a movement when they are physically and mentally fresh gets you the best results, because they are optimally prepared to perform it; when you get tired, you get sloppy and compensate more readily - so you actually want to aoid this
if you want to train transitions, do transitions - you don’t need isometric strength for that, you need well-baalanced co-contractions between the various mucles agonist / antagonist force coupled surrounding the joints that are involved in whatever functional transition you need to perform
that was a nice dissertation there…now explain why 6 weeks of almost exclusive hard stance work yielded a wide range of results, WHICH INCLUDE a reduction in joint pain left over from damage caused by previous bad gout attacks, if your point that “if put under repetative direct stress, tey actually get weaker” is true? ?
How come I have more agility? why do I have more ease of movement in ALL ranges of motion if the stance work is such a narrow, and specific practice?
If I was engaged in some other practice maybe you could say it was that, but all I did additionally was pushups, pull ups etc…
The next 6 weeks will be all footwork and mechanics drills. The only stance work will be holding the ball for 10-20 minutes prior to my workout. I was expecting the results of the LAST 6 weeks to come then.